![]() | 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. |
Can 220 be set back to warning people if they are about to add an external link as an image? I think it would be really useful if they could be informed to upload files if they trip this filter, resulting in less trouble for all of us. Regards So Why 12:04, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Can somebody add the words " wimpy", "wuss" and "wuss rock" to the filter 384? The problem is that a person from Columbus, Ohio has abused on this by months. S/He started at the mentioned article (a place where s/he lives) removing an "offensive" nickname " Cowtown". You can see all the history and since January 2011 it has been the same. Then s/he moved to Cowtown, another page protected against him/her. Then s/he started moving to music-related pages. Here is a list:
A place:
And I can continue, but I think that with those pages is enough. I have enough with this user, after six months of blocks, re-blocks and rangeblocks, he has nit done good contributions. Could you please add those words to that filter, or any other? Thanks. Tbhotch. ™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 02:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm receiving a lot of false positives thanks to the detection of this filter to the common auto-generated edit summary "New userpage through Outreach:ACIP" which is basically linked back to people who happen to use our outreachwiki, and I highly suspect that it is due to the outreach string tripping up the filter. Can we please remove it from the filter while this edit summaries are still in place, and until outreach can come to its senses? TeleComNasSprVen ( talk • contribs) 16:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Could somebody modify the "possible BLP issue or vandalism" filters to catch this sort of thing (not visible to non-admins). Thanks. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:38, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
I wish to create a filter that checks the old_wikitext
of a page for {{templatename|currentyear|currentmonthname|currentdate}}
. The only way I can do this AFAICT is to use modular arithmetic on the timestamp
, and, for the month name, using :=
with a switch (or if there are no switches then successive ternary operators). (a) Is there a better way? (b) If that is the only way, then how terribly expensive is such a check? (This is not on enWP.)—
msh210℠
19:32, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
"pattern"+year+"\|"+
, etc.). Does that work with rlike
? with contains
? by some other means?—
msh210℠
20:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC)( lcase(old_wikitext) contains '{{templatename|2011' ) & ( /* expensive conversion here: timestamp -> month & date */ )
"a"+1
in
Special:AbuseFilter/tools on your wiki. —
AlexSm
21:00, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
'abc' contains 'a'+'b'+'d'
evaluates to 1bd
, so there's an order-of-operations issue. And trying 'abc' contains ('a'+'b'+'d')
doesn't work (evaluates to ∅, as does if ('abc' contains ('a'+'b'+'d')) then 1 else 0 end
).—
msh210℠
21:21, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
'abc' contains ('a'+'b'+'c')
works fine. —
AlexSm
01:21, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
20110901...
while what we have is
Unix time. —
AlexSm
01:21, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
See contributions for User:60.52.43.195 -- this should have been caught by three different filters (17, 58, and 264), and is showing as a hit for each of those filters, yet the edit was allowed. The condition limits don't seem to be a problem right now. Any ideas? Thanks, NawlinWiki ( talk) 14:56, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Filter 420 may cause many false positives. I think it might be best to just tag the edits, removing the rate limit. — Kudu ~I/O~ 22:43, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Am I being dumb, or is this a bug? Black Kite (t) (c) 23:34, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
I recently designed this edit filter who's code is below
(article_text) 'User:ClueBot NG/Run' &(removed_lines) rlike "{{TrueItrue|False|false) ! (added_lines) rlike "{{TrueItrue|False|false}})
The filter is designed to run on the page User:ClueBot NG/Run and block vandals from changing the page to something other than "True" and "False." The page is the "switch" for ClueBot NG. While the bot can be blocked if it malfunctions, from this discussion, the users in this discussion seem to draw that if administrators can already block this bot if it malfunctions, than this page is intended for non-admins to turn off the bot in case it malfunctions. If this filter goes into effect, the action taken should be "disallow".
(article_text) 'User:ClueBot NG/Run' &(added_lines) rlike "{{False|false}})
This filter should warn editors that they are changing the filter to "false" that they should only turn it off if the bot appears to be malfunctioning.
Now, I do not have access to Edit Filter rights so I have no idea if these codes would work as I cannot access the Batch testing page. Hopefully the people that do, will fix the codes up and test it out and run it live. Thanks. OpenInfoForAll ( talk) 00:11, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
I requested here the addition of the words "wuss rock" (a degrading way to call pop rock/punk rock/power ballad/soft rock music) because of the long-term abuse of an editor from Columbus, Ohio. The filter worked for months, but now s/he decided to add a "-" between these words. The filter is not working as desired with this little change and now s/he returned with "wuss-rock". I know that as now there have been only two attacks with this, but there are enogh evidence that this user won't cooperate and will continue. If it is possible to add to the filter 384 would be appreciated. Tbhotch. ™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 21:06, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Done. --
zzuuzz
(talk)
11:49, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
As you may be aware, the edit filter is now enabled on all wikis. en.wikibooks admin/'crat/CU here; I was hoping for emailed content (or temporary access) for:
I'm hoping these additional/updated filters will reassure those wishing they could block unregistered users from editing. – Adrignola talk 02:51, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Not meant to be an RfC; that's why titled the section as RfV. Recently, the sysop right was removed from various inactive sysops, with a note that they could have it back in case they wished. Should we (or should we not) take up the same exercise for inactive sysops and other inactive users with respect to their abusefilter-modify/abusefilter-view-private rights? Wifione Message 07:15, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
After
Supreme facepalm of destiny-ing
ICONic Boyz, I noticed that the creator copy-and-pasted the tagline. Could something detect "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" in the first few lines of a new page creation, and mark it with something like "Tag: Possible A10"? →
Σ
τ
c.
01:08, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Is there any reason why this filter needs to be flagged as private?
(This came up on a mediawiki talk; I'll notify the users who've edited it of this thread too)
Chzz ► 10:28, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
We have filter 225 for vandalism in all caps and filter 437 for titles in caps. I just ran accross this edit and was wondering what people think of a filter for edits in all caps. I'm not sure it should be disallowed, but maybe it should be tagged. Perhaps if 5 or more words were in caps. I don't know regex so I'm not sure if that's possible. Anyway, I'd like to get input here before making a request. Thanks. - Hydroxonium ( T• C• V) 07:15, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
I wonder why this wasn't apparently picked up by a filter? Chzz ► 12:28, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
To the best of my understanding, we use the edit filter for the purpose of tracking bad edits (even if done in good faith). In fact, I believe that this discussion, about Filter 200, is an excelent precedent for this. Filter 423 seems to be a violation of this idea - as most use of WikiLove is probably good. What do other users think about this? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
I cleaned up
WP:EF/R. I'd like to know if any of the EF managers are going to work on the requests from 2010 (i.e. requests that are older than 1 year)? If the answer is no, I'll archive all those requests as Not done. -
Hydroxonium (
T•
C•
V)
19:40, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Is there any way, in the Wikipedia talk:Sandbox, to override the filter? I think it would be a good exception if you could override the filter while clearing the Sandbox. 71.146.20.62 ( talk) 00:45, 21 November 2011 (UTC) (Note: Copied from top)
How the hell was this huge section blanking not caught? Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 20:57, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
length(added_lines) < 1
. This means that if the user added any content, or changed any content, or moved it from one place to an other, this filter (
Filter 172) doesn't catch it.
עוד מישהו
Od Mishehu
11:47, 24 November 2011 (UTC)Hi, it think this might be an easy catch [1]. - DePiep ( talk) 00:04, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
This could be pretty useful for proactive cleanup, using the "warn" feature to notify editors of WP:MOS expectations and stuff. Any occurrence of "irregardless" or "Irregardless" that is not in italics or quotations marks or inside a quotation template; that sort of thing. I'd love to see it catch all cases of "aka" as a string by itself ("aka" not being a word in English; I don't care if you do it as AKA or a.k.a., but it's not "aka"). Even allowing quoted cases might still be too restrictive for a string this simple, though <sigh>. "[I|i]rregardless" seems like an easy one, though. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 23:09, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am picking up anti-vandalism experience, I am a rollbacker, never blocked and I think this would be an interesting right to have. I love doing anti-vandalism work, and I would love working behind the scenes of it. Paolo Napolitano 20:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
I've disabled 139 for now because it's attracting a lot of false positives, and they're the worst kind of false positives—like this brand new editor being prevented from writing an article. It's also catching a lot of potentially dodgy but seemingly good-faith edits where disallowing isn't appropriate in my opinion. Could somebody more proficient with filters please go through the log and then try to make the filter more specific—preventing every edit that uses fixed position markup is clearly not working. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:38, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Can someone please take a look at WP:AN/I, and try to find out why filter 139 hasn't been catching the recent racist template vandalism? Please be careful viewing the diffs given there: they cover the content with an invisible image that clickjacks every link to racist sites which may well also contain malware, even in preview mode. In the meantime, I've turned filter 453 back on, which is simpler, and should perhaps have a better chance of catching it? -- The Anome ( talk) 00:45, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
This is hardly subtle, so I'm thinking it might be possible to tack it onto the end of a filter somewhere, but I don't know my way around filters well enough to do it myself. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:42, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am actively involved in anti-vandalism efforts here. I am an Autopatroller, Reviewer, Rollbacker, File mover, and Account creator here. I identified to the WMF 03:06, 2012 February 7 (UTC). — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 04:59, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
'autopatrolled'
, 'filemover'
, and 'reviewer'
) makes me even more concerned. Maybe I'm assuming too much bad faith (in which case other EFMs and editors will support you), but this is just too much for me to ignore.
Reaper Eternal (
talk)
16:46, 24 February 2012 (UTC)Um, I personally don't care about the flag collecting. I don't know if that's what you're doing, or if you're the kind of person who gets really interested in one field of the 'pedia and then moves on to another, which is a totally good-faith way to accidentally collect lots of hats. Anyway, what I care more about is that you show some kind of competence so we know you're not going to blow up the filter system. Someguy1221 ( talk) 08:49, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Jeff G., you haven't explained why you want this userright, only that you feel entitled to it. Are there specific abuse filters you wish to write or change? Do you have a need to see the code of filters set to private? You can already see how the filters work by looking at the public ones. Or put another way, can you link us to your past successful requests for filters or filter changes (if you already know what you're doing, it's simpler to just give you the bit)? Franamax ( talk) 12:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello, I'd like to request edit filter manager rights for the purposes of viewing filters only. I occasionally set up abusefilters on smaller wikis to prevent vandalism/spam, and I'd like to see what some of the enwiki filters do for that. Unfortunately, almost all of the filters that would actually be useful to me are marked as private, thus the need for the ability to view them. Like all permissions, I'll have this removed when I don't need it any more. Thanks, Ajraddatz ( Talk) 17:23, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
I would like to be able to edit the filter, as I am making a filter myself ( User:Tomtomn00/editfilter.js). I have over 2000 edits and I am very active on recent changes. ~ ⇒TomTom N00 @ 13:14, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Not done, per Ajraddatz and MBisanz's comments above.
28bytes (
talk)
20:19, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Is there an EFM flag that allows viewing (but not editing) the filters? Salvidrim! 10:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
All my AbuseFilter work is on another wiki ( Appropedia) - I don't have the privileges here, so I can't look at other filters to see how it's done. I wonder if someone could help me, or suggest another place to ask - I've tried on mw:Extension talk:AbuseFilter but it's awfully quiet there.
Any help is much appreciated. I'm having a lot of success with this fantastic tool, but coding it has involved a lot of trial and error. -- Chriswaterguy talk 18:28, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
(4 < EXPR) && (EXPR < 9)
foo := "sfgdsgf"
age_in_days := user_age/(24*3600); age_in_days < 100
user_age < 24*3600;
spamminess := "foo" in added_lines + "bar" in added_lines ;
spamminess >= 1
(user_age < 24*3600) & (spamminess := ("foo" in added_lines) + ("bar" in added_lines)); (spamminess >= 1)
I have a spam filter (that I use on Appropedia) based on a scoring system - if it's above 10, it's blocked. Sometimes I get a weird result, and it takes ages to debug it. Just working out the score takes a while (e.g. " >=10" matches, ">=20" matches, ">=30" fails, ">=25" matches...) Then I take out chunks of the scoring code, and see what the new score is (in the same stab-in-the-dark way) to eventually narrow down where the high score is coming from.
Surely there's a better way...? Thanks! -- Chriswaterguy talk 19:32, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
This edit was tagged by Filter 231, despite not being "nonsense characters". Salvidrim! 20:33, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
On this update, shouldn't all \1{6} have been changed to \1{7}? The first part is still detecting only 6 characters in the current version of the filter. Helder 20:05, 20 March 2012 (UTC) PS: this was copied from here.
Hi, I'd like to have this because I am getting more experienced on here, and I want to do more things on here. I would like to have more permissions to edits, and help fix filters. Like all permissions, I'll have this removed when I don't need it any more. DreamFieldArts Talk 13:50, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
In the context of a discussion of privacy issues related to the edit filter, one item that came up was listing non-sysops with editfiltermanager set. I'm not sure if such a list already exists, so I ran an API listing. 146 users are in the access group "abusefilter" and the following are not also in the "sysop" group (+ link to archived permission request):
Charitwo (granted by Slakr 23 Jun 2011)
Chzz (
16 Oct 2009)
EdoDodo (
19 Sep 2010)
Fran Rogers (ex-admin, self-granted 20 Oct 2009)
Mayur (
8 Dec 2011)
Netalarm (
21 Aug 2010)
Pek the Penguin (self-granted by Optimist on the run to non-secure alt account)
Petrb (granted by PeterSymonds 15 Oct 2011)
Prodebot (Prodego temp experiment)
Sole Soul (
15 Sep 2010)
Tim1357 (
26 Apr 2010)
UncleDouggie (
?? Oct 2010)
Vito Genovese (
17 Jan 2010)
Perhaps occasional review would be a good idea, to confirm that these users still need this access level? Franamax ( talk) 21:40, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Just a side note, for those who might not have kept track. Wifione Message 07:57, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I am requesting that WP:FLTR be added to the shortcuts. I know this page is not fully protected, however, I am not at the privilege level to make an edit to this page. Thanks. 75.53.218.81 ( talk) 04:03, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Does the filter that catches removed speedy deletion templates cover:
If not, could the filter be made to catch them? → Σ τ c. 00:34, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Special:AbuseFilter/39 (School libel and vandalism) is currently marked as private. It was public when I started it, then marked private, then I made it public again only for it to be marked private. I think there is no reason to have this filter private, but I'd like to get consensus about it. IMO it's a useful resource for recent changes patrol. The log is currently hidden to non-EFMs, which I think is a hindrance. I don't know if that's a temporary thing, but there are other reasons. The filter has no reason to be private. The intention of the filter is not to catch determined vandals, and I'm certain virtually every one of them has never heard of an edit filter. I'll bet most haven't even heard of Wikipedia. Vandalism really belongs in a different filter. Having the filter public allows other to offer suggestions as well as look at the log. It offers transparency as well as utility with no downside that I can see. Furthermore Special:AbuseFilter/189 which is almost identical in design and purpose is public. Your opinions, thanks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 09:05, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Hey all :). As part of developing Version 5 of the Article Feedback Tool, which includes text-based comments, we're drawing up a list of proposed abuse filters to apply to and integrate it. I would be very grateful if you could take part in the discussion; help with the implementation of proposed filters, propose new ones, and point out any issues you can see. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) ( talk) 18:59, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
AFTAB HUSSAIN (PAKISTAN) was written in all capital letters (later deleted) but this did not trigger filter 50. The user who created it was not autoconfirmed. jfd34 ( talk) 11:09, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
!"autoconfirmed" in user_groups
which means that it triggers for autoconfirmed users.
Dipankan (
Have a chat?)
10:57, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
!"autoconfirmed" in user_groups
mean it triggers for non-autoconfirmed users? I did get the chance to have someone confirm the user who created the page wasn't autoconfirmed at the time of creation, so that condition should have been tripped, something else must not have matched.
JoeGazz84
♦
23:37, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
I mean, really? The abuse (edit) filter is for abuse, not for nice, WikiLove giving. -- Tomtomn00 ( talk • contributions) 20:24, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Open proxies re-code some characters passing through them, and I thought this can be used in a log-only edit filter like
contains_any(string(added_lines),"%2", "incloak.com")
%2 is rather common for open proxies [8] [9] whereas incloak.com is one of the (many?) sites used to recode html addresses [10]. Suggestions? Other strings? Materialscientist ( talk) 06:14, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
I see what I want but need help with coding: the task is to filter (log-only) addition of the exact text string
%2
into one of the
ref name=
operators on any page [11] [12] - this is what proxies do (provided the ref name operator contains space, full stop, comma or similar symbol. Note that ref name=XXX can have slightly different syntax (with/without spaces and with/without quotes or slash, like <ref name=cia> or <ref name = "cia" />), and the targeted %2 symbol can be anywhere in the XXX string. The choice of %2 is because proxies use different coding: say, full stop may be coded as %252E or %2E. Materialscientist ( talk) 06:43, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
If I enter a filter ID into the relevant field of Special:AbuseLog, e.g. 135, it works and shows only hits to that filter. But I can't find a way to show hits to a number of filters. I tried commas (e.g. "135,432"), ampersands, "OR", pipes... but nothing works.
This would be extremely useful if possible. Even a url hack would be great. Anyone know how? -- Chriswaterguy talk 06:31, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm considering filing a BRFA so I can make a bot that automatically archives the false positive page and sorts it by whether the reports have or have not been actioned. Currently, I'm doing this manually. Any thoughts? Reaper Eternal ( talk) 01:54, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Is there any reason why EF/R is _not_ NOINDEXed? I can think of a lot of good reasons why we should NOINDEX it, but can't think of any reasons why it shouldn't be. 64.40.54.240 ( talk) 09:12, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
I've noticed that the WP:EF/R page is currently being responded to mostly by one or two users, looks like it could use some help. I am very comfortable with regex (almost all of my toolserver tools use it pretty extensively), and would be willing to help out. I'll admit I'm new to the AbuseFilter extension syntax, but I've been reading up on it and it seems pretty straightforward. It would likely take me a little while to ramp up and become comfortable with actually committing new filters, but it looks like it is easy enough to test out new filters before committing them. Thanks. -Scottywong | speak _ 16:49, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Need help with added_lines. A simplified example: contains_any(added_lines, "%25") returns 1 when applied to this only because some text was changed around the %25 string, whereas the purpose is to catch addition of %25 string (Note: my actual operator is added_lines rlike "ref name\s?=.{0,15}%[23]", but the problem is same; I use [13] against 112.204.31.194). Materialscientist ( talk) 08:13, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
(added_lines contains "%25") & !(removed_lines contains "%25")
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the logs used to show you 'which' (i.e., the number) edit filter was tripped, even if it was a hidden filter? I noticed my bot tripped some, and it only shows the filter numbers for visible filters? Am I misremembering this, or was there a change? Avic ennasis @ 10:13, 12 Sivan 5772 / 10:13, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
A spambot is getting past Special:AbuseFilter/271 eg http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Board_of_Admiralty&diff=prev&oldid=497983981, so can some on add "lingerie" to the list? Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 21:03, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
As per my original request, I'd like to be reinstated. I am active again following a period of absence due to family matters, and I need the rights right now in order to work on our filters. Please note that my original pledge remains.
Vito Genovese 16:34, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Hello.
I have had, on several occasions, the edit filter warn me (inaccurately) that I am adding a protection template to an unprotected page when in fact the edit filter is triggering a false message. I have noticed that it is falsely notifying me of doing this when I attempt to edit move-protected pages which have the move protection template. It detects that I am saving the page with the protection template (which already exists), and that the page is not protected in a traditional manner, such as semi-protection, which it is evidently programmed to spot. In that case, this filter needs to be adjusted to recognize pages that are move-protected as well. Thank you. 70.248.186.239 ( talk) 02:04, 21 June 2012 (UTC), copied here 03:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi,
I am a long time editor ( contribs on en wiki) and also a crat on Marathi language wikipedia .On Marathi language wikipedia and few other wikis I mainly work on newbie support and building help pages and wikipedia values awareness campaigns. Presently my area of concentration is AbuseFilter development and related help pages on Marathi language wikipedia and now we are in need of already developed filters including the private ones you guys have over here.
I have already studied and used some of publicly available AFM used on en wikipedia, besides I used filter info publicly available available on de and fr wikipedia. I need to access even the private filters for comparative study and to be able to export them if found usefull, and file enhancement bugs for features currently not available ( my little participation on bugzilla) . As earlier stated I am an admin and crat on Marathi language Wikipedia and admin on two wiktionaries , I am a Wikimedian for over 8 years, so I can be trusted.
I hereby pledge that I will not make a single EFM edit (feel free to revoke the right if you see me editing them), and if I decide to work on them after gaining some experience, I will ask for an additional permission here. I'd normally go for a temporary access, but the filters are constantly developed, and I anticipate that I'll have to check them regularly in order for us to be in synch.
Thanks and Regards
Mahitgar ( talk) 02:02, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Filter 479 is currently set to block users from adding the example image to an article. I vaguely recall this being one of the earliest filters created, and that it was disbanded for some reason I don't remember. That early filter caught not only the example image but basically anything that could be added by hitting a button on the edit toolbar, that had no place in an article - '''Bold text''', ''Italic text'', etc. So my question to the other edit filter managers is, is this something we now want? Should Filter 479 start catching all such mistakes, or only specific ones? Should it be set to warn, block, both, tag, nothing? Thanks. Someguy1221 ( talk) 21:12, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
I should like to be judged suitable to be granted permission. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones ( talk) 18:28, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
This filter is tripped whenever someone removes a level 2 header. Often, there are legitimate reasons for doing so. I propose that this filter should be configured to detect if there was an edit summary or not explaining why the level 2 header was removed. Electric Catfish 14:28, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Would someone mind unchecking (Article Feedback) Auto-flag as abuse on filter 458. As discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Article_Feedback_Tool/Version_5#Lots_of_stuff_is_being_incorrectly_automatically_marked_as_abuse and Wikipedia_talk:Article_Feedback_Tool/Version_5#Automated_flagging_as_abuse the filter is generating too many false positives and at the moment we don't have a way to unflag something as abuse once flagged by the filter. Monty 845 13:16, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Can someone check this filter against this log? I can't see why it disallowed it. Black Kite ( talk) 20:01, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
What's the purpose of this filter? Electric Catfish 14:26, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello all, I have started to develop an edit filter with the aim of detecting edits made by spambots, which can be detected by certain "keywords" in either the edit summary or the text added to the page edited. I am currently active on SimpleWP, where I hold the positions of administrator, checkuser, bureaucrat, and oversighter. The problem I have is that SimpleWP is a wiki with a relatively low traffic volume, which makes testing edit filters more time intensive. I would therefore like to ask you as a community to grant me the privilege to see and change editfilters on this wikipedia, so that the editfilter can be tested and finetuned. The arrangement would be temporary until the filter works sufficiently well, that it can be used on other wikis. The filter in question is filter 30 on SEWP, which is private, for obvious reasons. Thanks for the consideration. -- Eptalon ( talk) 21:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi! I frequently patrol the abuse log and report people who repeatedly trip the filters to AIV. I would like to help you guys out with modifying the filters and fixing errors. However, what are the requirements to getting that user right? Thanks, Electriccatfish2 ( talk) 11:41, 16 July 2012 (UTC).
I'm an active contributor on the false positives reports, but I can do less these days because I cannot view the abuse log entries for private filters. I have knowledge of regex and the abuse filter syntax.-- Jasper Deng (talk) 17:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Why didn't this edit get tagged with the adding email address filter? It should be enabled in talk namespaces as well, especially for anonymous users who cannot configure an email address on their account. jfd34 ( talk) 06:41, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
This filter should also check the following code:
<span onmouseover="_tipon(this)" onmouseout="_tipoff()"><span class="google-src-text"
This code is sometimes automatically added by some browsers when viewing a Google-translated version of a page, and then clicking the edit link there. IE 8 adds this code, do not know if any other browsers have this problem. jfd34 ( talk) 10:58, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
To reduce clutter on the filter list, I've marked as deleted any filter that: 1) is currently disabled; 2) was last edited in 2011 or earlier; and 3) is not marked as a test filter. Any objections, just revert it. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:19, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
As a user, who is already experienced with abuse filters from several wikis and who is active in global and local vandalism fighting (which I sadly didn't have much time for in the last months), it would be a good thing for me to be able to edit abuse filters and to be able to see hidden ones (to be able to export them and to track down false-positives), over here. Furthermore, there are other, non-vandalism, use cases, like Special:AbuseFilter/485 which I come across, as I'm involved into technical matters and it would be great, if I could work on that myself. - Hoo man ( talk) 01:37, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
That was a fast one, thanks. Hoo man ( talk) 13:39, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
I can't see any reason why the latest exception on this filter was tripping it, seems an odd article to be included in that filter. Black Kite ( talk) 23:06, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
We're hitting it pretty badly now (~15% of all edits), so I'm going to make a list of filters that are expensive and see what we can do.
Thanks! Reaper Eternal ( talk) 16:23, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
I think we're now down to a much more acceptable ~0% of edits maxing out the condition limit. Reaper Eternal ( talk) 16:06, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm not an EFM yet, but Black Kite informed me that tripping the long-term pattern of abuse filter does not mean that the user has actually vandalized, the user has just edited in a pattern that vandals do. Please correct me if I'm wrong here, but Mr. Z-bot is reporting users who trip these filters to AIV and the reports are being declined. Can someone please look into this? Thanks, Electric Catfish 21:27, 14 August 2012 (UTC).
I've currently got filter 489 set up to log when IP users from particular address ranges edit, in an attempt to first track a particularly persistent vandal's activity, then, with appropriate content-based filter rules, to block their activities. 78.0.175.227 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) meets those criteria, but the filter seems to have triggered only once on their numerous recent edits, according to the edit log, yet back-testing the rule on all that IP's edits seems to catch them all. Can anyone tell me if I am doing something wrong? Is there some kind of throttling being applied here (perhaps on the logging end?), or is there a problem somewhere else that might account for this? Thanks. -- The Anome ( talk) 01:12, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Okay, so I've dealt with several filters:
Some expensive filters:
Reaper Eternal ( talk) 16:02, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Can anyone tweak the AFTv5 filters so that they can catch vandalism like [19], [20], [21], [22], and maybe even legal threats like this one? jfd34 ( talk) 16:15, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Hey, all, can edit filter 29 be updated to account for the template redirects that the new Page Curation tool uses? The full list can be found here. I think it would look something like:
(user_editcount < 50) &(lcase(removed_lines) rlike "{{db-[a-z0-9]{2,15}(\||}})|{{db\||{{db}}|{{speedy deletion-.+?}}") &!(lcase(added_lines) rlike "{{db-[a-z0-9]{2,15}(\||}})|{{db\||{{db}}|{{speedy deletion-.+?}}") &!(lcase(removed_lines) rlike "{{db-(self|blanked|auth|g7|user|owner|u1)}}|<nowiki>{{db|{{speedy deletion-author request}}|<nowiki>{{speedy deletion")
But someone should probably check this, since my previous experience with PCRE is slim-to-none. Thanks! Writ Keeper ⚇ ♔ 20:00, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Hey all
We're talking about upping the condition limit/percentage limit for AFT5 filters and AFT5 filters only, from 5 percent to 10 percent. Obviously we'll run it past ops first, but I wanted to give you guys a heads up and check we're not missing an obvious problem :). Okeyes (WMF) ( talk) 18:23, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Can anyone modify the filter (#225) to catch this? (replacing E with 3) jfd34 ( talk) 07:11, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
In filter 189 (BLP vandalism/libel) please change \bwank
to \bwank(a|er|ed|ing|s)?\b
to avoid false positives like
[23]
[24]
[25]
jfd34 (
talk)
05:30, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
There is a question at WP:AN about a long term abuse case whether IP can be an edit filter criteria. Specifically there are some things that might be caught by abuse filter but only within a specific set of IP ranges. Is this functionality possible? Shadowjams ( talk) 04:39, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi.
Lately, I've been working on some tools that would use the edit filter and have been constantly irritated at how many filters are set to private. Take User:Mr.Z-bot/filters.js for example. All of the filters considered immediate are set to private except for 139, which was specifically un-privated after I talked to an admin about it on IRC. For anyone trying to find/track serious vandals this gets annoying real fast. I understand that many of these filters are private because they're for LTAs and would be gamed if made public, but it still is annoying.
I've also been reporting a few bugs regarding the edit filter: bugzilla:42734 (Non-admins can see contents of deleted pages when viewing abusefilter details), bugzilla:42758 (AbuseFilter log events should show in the IRC feed), bugzilla:42802 (Query multiple filter logs at the same time in the API), and bugzilla:42814 (Abusefilter API does not check for abusefilter-view-private userright). Incidentally I wouldn't have noticed the last one if I did have the EFM right.
One of the things I'm currently working on is an IRC bot that tracks active vandals using the edit filter (working), and is able to accurately recommend blocks (not yet working). I believe this would be a major improvement over the current system in #wikipedia-en-abuse-log. It's currently about halfway done, you can PM me if you want access. If/when bug 42814 is closed, I won't be able to monitor private filters without the EFM right. Nor can I currently start tracking private filters, which are mainly for LTA's, if I can't see them.
As far as editing filters goes, I believe I am competent in regular expressions (having successfully run a number of bots) and have enough clue to know whats a good idea and not. But for the most part I don't plan on editing filters.
tl;dr: I would like the EFM permission to view private filters and build useful tools with the edit filter, not so much of editing actual filters. Legoktm ( talk) 06:32, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Done following 5 days of discussion with no objections.
28bytes (
talk)
19:02, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Any progress on this?: [ [26]] 68.50.128.91 ( talk) 08:26, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi all,
I have submitted a bug and changeset for edit filter log events to show up in the irc.wikimedia.org feed for enwp. Since these feeds are public, only public filters will be included. This will allow for bots/scripts to find out about filter trips as soon as they occur, rather than continually polling the API.
Thanks, Legoktm ( talk) 11:48, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
<rc-pmtpa> [[Special:Log/abusefilter]] hit * Username * Username triggered [[Special:AbuseFilter/##|filter ##]], performing the action "edit" on [[Pagename]]. Actions taken: Warn ([[Special:AbuseLog/#####|details]])
Hi all,
I wrote above that edit filter trips will start showing up in the irc.wikimedia.org recent changes feed. However this is only for public filters, not private ones. The only "non-public" information that would be shown (as compared to what Special:AbuseLog shows) would be the filter ## of what was tripped, and the log id. I believe that such information will not enable clever vandals to try and game the filters, however it would make it easier for tools/bots to track private filters. A slight code modification would be required to implement this, however I'm willing to write that. Thanks, Legoktm ( talk) 04:35, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Here, a good edit is rejected because of the paragraph above, which was already there and presumably added before the edit filter existed. Is this a bug, and does it need fixing? Black Kite ( talk) 12:40, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi all,
I would like to keep an eye out on my filters/other anti-abuse filters but since they're set on private, I cannot see them on my alternate account. Could someone please add abusefilter to this account? Elockid (Alternate) ( Talk) 21:13, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Could some of you fine filter managers drop by Wikipedia:BN#Wikipedia:Changing_username.2FSimple and advise on the suitability of that proposal? Thanks. MBisanz talk 04:51, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Can someone give me a pointer as to how I could modify filter 526 to catch this?— Kww( talk) 00:10, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I'd like to know how frequently the edit filters prevent edits taking place. Do we have any stats? ( Wikipedia:Edit_filter/Performance doesn't seem to have been refreshed since 2009 so I've taken the liberty of declaring it historical). Ϣere SpielChequers 21:53, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
I would have expected someone to have posted this by now, but User:Hoo man has submitted a changeset that would fundamentally change the way logging works, there's a non-technical explanation here. The specific change is gerrit:42501.
Also, if you're already not on the wikitech-ambassadors list, you should subscribe since these kinds of changes will be announced there. Legoktm ( talk) 02:31, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
I am admin and burocrat at Marathi language Wikipedia mr-wiki.Currentlly we are using "contains_any" parameter for filtering out required word .We are looking for effective suggssions for following (So we can have properly updated help pages)
Thanks and Regards
Mahitgar (
talk)
11:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
(added_lines rlike "\bतू\b")
. Let me know if that is what you want. Cheers!
Reaper Eternal (
talk)
13:53, 19 February 2013 (UTC)Appears to be stopping this editor from making any edits at all. Must be an FP, surely? Indeed, if you look at the filter log, there are at least two others on the first page that appear to be FPs as well. Black Kite ( talk) 13:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
With the advent of Wikidata the removal of interwiki links is now desirable instead of potentially abusive, so this tag should probably be depracated. Beeblebrox ( talk) 20:12, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
I'd prefer for us to properly plan this and just have a flag day where we removed all of them en masse. While the transition is piecemeal, their removal can still be improper if the central support isn't there for a given article. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) ( talk) 11:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi all! Will is be possible to add a new filter that stops people from adding categories to pages in the Wikipedia talk:Aricles for creation/... namespace? This is to prevent them adding categories to non-published pages. Thanks, Mdann52 ( talk) 11:04, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
bobrayner ( talk) 11:22, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Many false positives from this filter. Basically, appears to be stopping a lot of good-faith edits from non-confirmed editors where they're actually doing the right thing and adding sources. Am starting to get a little frustrated with opening reports here and seeing "58" a lot. Examples [27] [28] [29] [30]. Filter 225 seems to becoming problematic as well. Black Kite ( talk) 03:02, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
I try to understand how filters related to the Article Feedback work, before the extension is enabled on the French Wikipedia, where I am an abusefilter editor. I have seen that you have created specific filters, for instance Special:AbuseFilter/502 (" Feedback: Extremely long words"). But I can't see anything that test the action in the code of this filter (such as action == "feedback"). So how is it possible that this filter does not match normal contributions in articles?
Orlodrim ( talk) 21:37, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
The current filter parameters in one of mr-wiki filter is some thing like following
article_namespace >= 0 &
new_size >= 2 &
!article_articleid = 64452 & (This is article related to Rabies)
!contains_any(added_lines,"abc","efg")&
contains_any(added_lines,"synonymOfWordDog")
On mr-wiki one of the edit filter, filters synonym of word 'Dog' to avoid usage of the word for abuse.Since the synonym of word 'Dog' was giving false positive on article related to "Rabies" in main name space.So we added parameter "! article_articleid = 64452 &" to avoid false positive on this article.But in recent abuse attack we noticed that rather than filter skipping the article related to "Rabies"; filter is skipping the synonym of word 'Dog'. Please do suggest an improvement.
Rgds
Mahitgar ( talk) 15:35, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi,User:Mattj2 , Thanks for your reply.
1) The main problem we sought solution was at third line (!article_articleid) . At local wiki we found reliable work around for the problem.But we still are interested in understanding exactly how exactly this syntax works .As such thought to be an error can be used constructively in some other code.But I was not sure how much resources it consumes so was waiting for some technical discussion to take place.
2)a First Line (article_namespace >= 0) On our local wiki usually people do understand importance/value of wiki to their mother tougne so as such we have hardly any deliberate vandalism in main namespace (other than few trial and error edits). We have left it open in main space too , because it has max edits(since we do not have enough edits in our language at other namespaces) and helps to study and contain false positives.
2)b Since info is from private filter it won't be wise to mention name spaces we exempt.At the same time discussion/suggessions on various syntax options for inclusion or avoiding namespace are welcome ,since it will help updating help pages.
Thanks and Regards Mahitgar ( talk) 13:54, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
article_articleid == 64452
!(article_articleid == 64452)
Hello and thanks once again for all your effort User:Mattj2.All your effort helps us to confirm that we are on right track .Besides with such info I keep bulding up help pages so your effort has been very valuable.
About :article_articleid == 64452 My obsrvation has been it calls in all the words from an article ,actually I need to confirm this again by testing it once more, that I will do eventually.If it comes true it can make certain different work easier, but certainly would need more testing.
Thanks and regards
Mahitgar ( talk) 12:13, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
I patrol new pages, mostly through tags, and have noticed that this tag hasn't been applied to an article for quite some time. It think it's been years since I've seen it applied. I'm guessing the filter has an issue as I'm sure there have been plenty of articles created with no mention of the title. I'm not sure that this is the best place to report an issue but this was the best place I could find. Is there anything I can do to help check these filters (96 and 238) to see if there's an issue that leaves this page perpetually blank? OlYeller21 Talktome 02:54, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Not sure which filter this is, but it probably needs a quick tweak because this got through it? Black Kite ( talk) 13:39, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
edit_delta < -5000
added_lines >= 5000 || removed_lines >= 5000
- Mahitgar ( talk) 03:34, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
Depending on my experiance at our local wiki I have made some feature requests At bugzilla through following bugs
Thanks and Regards
Mahitgar ( talk) 05:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
He is restricted from "any category-related edits outside of mainspace". Could a filter be constructed to prevent him from doing that? As I see it, he sometimes "forgets" his restriction, and would unlikely to try to work around it. But I'm not sure how to write the filter, even there would be agreement that it is a good thing. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:57, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
No, thank you. Creating edit filters to enforce topic bans would entail an unnecessary drain on server resources, increasing edit processing times and overflowing the condition limit. If Alan Liefting would like a software warning about edits that potentially violate his topic ban, he can add them to his local javascript page.
Reaper Eternal (
talk)
00:58, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
@ User:King of Hearts , Please can you provide an example of "timestamp < someunixtimevalue" to use in such filters. I suppose this parameter is used to assign a time limit to auto lapse is kinda filters you are discussing here.It seems related filter on en wiki are private and I dont have access . If you provide me with an example we can save our time in trial and error at local wiki. Regrds
Mahitgar ( talk) 15:19, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Where's the list? I'm trying to help a guy out at Teahouse who apparently triggered edit filter #139. What the heck is that?
>>Is there a list?<<
I just find the function (or whatever) rlike
for checking regex patterns. It seems to attempt to match the entire string only, not a part of the string. So how would one match just a part of a string with regex? The dot (.
) doesn't seem to represent an arbitrary character either ('a.' rlike 'as'
yields False
), like the article on
Perl Compatible Regular Expressions seems to indicate. Is there any documentation available for the regex used in this extension? --
Njardarlogar (
talk)
13:29, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
'as' rlike 'a.'
instead. --
zzuuzz
(talk)
19:31, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
According to mw:Extension:AbuseFilter/RulesFormat
action='upload'
and
action='delete'
are supposed to be valid actions.But I could not succeed through the tests. Any clues,Please ?
Mahitgar ( talk) 15:44, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello all; As a non-privileged user (who is not likely to become an abusefilter-manager) I was wondering if one of the more experienced managers could help me understand how to get engaged in the process. I'm currently wetting my feet with the syntax at test.Wikipedia, but want to eventually bring those skills where they matter (i.e, here). Fortunately for the project, the system as it stands is designed not to break things, but unfortunately for a newbie, all the contentious edits that do trigger a filter as vandalism, are often marked as private where I cannot interact with them. I'm looking for a way more than "Chat with us on the talk page mate!" to contribute, but am not requesting the flag. Look forward to hearing from you! Cheers! - TIM( Contact)/( Contribs) 11:51, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
I think it would be useful to create a temporary filter to view the edits done by Visual editor. Particularly the ones done by new accounts. There are still some significant problems with it and if they release it to the 50% of new accounts today as they have been advertising it coudl cause a spike in the errors introduced to articles and formatting problems. Kumioko ( talk) 16:59, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Would it be possible to exempt bots from Filter 167. We are having problems with archiving bots not being able to create new archives. Mdann52 ( talk) 08:37, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
I've been getting weird results with count, rcount and regex. I'll show tests below against this blocked edit - which is an edit containing the letter e multiple times.
Part 1: rcount can't count?
Count and rcount (in many examples that I've tested) evaluate to exactly 1 if there is a match, and to minus infinity (or at least a large negative number) if there is no match.
E.g. I test the simple filter:
rcount("e" in added_lines) == 1
This reports "The filter matched this change", when I expect it to not match. The count should be much higher than 1. ">1" or any other comparison I've tried fails to match.
Now I test for a string which is not in the added lines:
rcount("this is a test string blah blah blah" in added_lines) == 1
That matches, but it shouldn't. "0" or any other comparison I tried fails to match.
Also weird:
rcount("e" in "foo")
...which matches, but shouldn't.
count gives similar results when I've tried it.
Part 2: regex:
Now to try regex for this string which is not found in added lines, testing against the same edit... at first it works correctly:
added_lines regex "this is a test string blah blah blah"
"The filter did not match this change." Working correctly, no problem.
Using ! for NOT:
!added_lines regex "this is a test string blah blah blah"
"The filter matched this change." Again, working correctly.
Then it gets weird
added_lines regex "this is a test string blah blah blah" == 0
This reports "The filter did not match this change.". Problem! I expect the first part of the expression to be false, and therefore the whole expression should match.
added_lines regex "this is a test string blah blah blah" < -10000000000000000000000000000000000000
This reports "The filter matched this change". False is somehow given a large negative number.
Can anyone help explain this to me? I've written a filter based on rcount, and on the idea that false is 0 and true is 1 - it's not working, and I came across these anomalies while trying to debug it. -- Chriswaterguy talk 08:39, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
rcount("e" in added_lines)
isn't giving the appropriate arguments to rcount. Rcount takes two arguments: the regex and the string with which to compare the regex. (Usage: rcount(string regex, string haystack).)("asdasdasdasdasdffff" rlike "asdd") = 0
is not the same as ("asdasdasdasdasdffff" rlike "asdd") = false
. The first expression, rlike, evaluates to 'false' in this case, and then a compare is done between 'false' and '0', which evaluates to 'false'.In the uppermost row of Special:AbuseFilter:
“ | Of the last 5,440 actions, 24 (0.44%) have reached the condition limit of 1,000, and 99 (1.82%) have matched one of the filters currently enabled. | ” |
"!("confirmed" in user_groups)
will eliminate the need to run the rest of the filter on any established users. With regards to edits matching the filter and not being caught, that is likely because those actions reached the condition limit before reaching the filter that they matched. When an action takes 1000 conditions, it stops being processed by the edit filter.
Reaper Eternal (
talk)
10:32, 6 June 2013 (UTC)乌拉跨氪 ( talk) 11:59, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
This is zhwiki filter #21:
action == "edit" & !("autoconfirmed" in user_groups) & !("bot" in user_groups) & (article_namespace == 6) & !(user_name in article_recent_contributors) & (removed_lines rlike "\{\{.*\}\}") & !(removed_lines in added_lines)
Firstly, I would remove the !("bot" in user_groups)
check, since your bot accounts are probably going to be autoconfirmed due to mass editing. I'd also move the namespace check to the front, since that will filter out far more edits than the action == "edit"
check. I can't help too much since I can't read Chinese and thus have no clue what this filter is supposed to be doing. This leaves us with the slightly more optimized filter:
(article_namespace == 6) & !("confirmed" in user_groups) & (action == "edit") & !(user_name in article_recent_contributors) & (removed_lines rlike "\{\{.*\}\}") & !(removed_lines in added_lines)
Reaper Eternal ( talk) 14:35, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi folks,
How can I create a template that lists contributions by a specific user just on abuse filters?
We use hu:Template:Adminlista-elem to list special admin activities, such as log pages and editing MediaWiki namespace. I want to enhance it with abuse filter modifications. Bináris ( talk) 07:43, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
In case people haven't heard, VisualEditor does not play well with the edit filter. At present any edit done with VE that should trigger either warn or disallow will result in a fatal error: "Error: Hit AbuseFilter: [name of triggered filter]". This means that warn and disallow are functionally the same for VE right now. In addition, the custom error messages designed for the edit filter will not be shown when editing with VE. Dragons flight ( talk) 05:56, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm sad to see that there is not much traffic on this talk page... lack of camaraderie amongst filter managers, perhaps? :( Anyway, does anyone have any clue what to make of the filter 527 log? I doubt anyone is patrolling it, because it is fairly meaningless. Does anyone have any idea how the createaccount filters work? — This, that and the other (talk) 09:50, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello,
There are currently many false positives for filter that trigger on large deletions (I just opened a bug report: bugzilla:52062).
For instance [34] [35] [36] [37] on filter 30 (which has more than 500 detections today, while the number of detections / day is usually around 100).
Until this is fixed, you might want to disable warnings for this filter, and similar filters if you have some.
Kind regards,
Orlodrim ( talk) 22:18, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Do we have a filter that looks for [1],[2],etc, which indicates refs were pasted from one wikipedia page to another. If not, I'll propose one in the normal fashion - im guessing it might be a perf problem. John Vandenberg ( chat) 15:00, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
In a discussion about a similar filter on Portuguese Wikipedia, we noticed your filter which detects "text added after categories and interwiki" doesn't have any result since february 2013 (we copied the English version and it stopped detecting edits until we reverted to our old version). Helder 19:52, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Hey, all, during NPP, I came across this article. It's obviously spam, so I nominated it for deletion under G11. At nearly the same time, the author added categories to the article with VE. For some reason, their edit tripped the "removing speedy deletion tags" edit filter, even though it didn't remove a speedy deletion tag, and I can't see any obvious reason (though I'm not a regex expert, a regexpert if you will) why it would have tripped the filter. I see from the above that VE is causing some issues with the edit filter; is causing false positives like this a known issue? Writ Keeper (WK to move) ⚇ ♔ 14:30, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Why is this filter hidden? If it only throttles pagemoves, it shouldn't be hidden, so I'll presume it's because it contains something like HAGGER specifics...? Ginsuloft ( talk) 23:59, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Special:AbuseFilter/559. Would someone mind cooking one up? I'll get around to it eventually if no one volunteers. But we are getting lots of "false" positive reports about this one, so clearly the newbies have no clue why this is not allowed, and who could expect them to. Someguy1221 ( talk) 11:11, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi
This is imformal request for comment.
For throttlling in edit filters, all types of actions are considered and I suppose even preview actions are considered.
Is getting preview actions counted in total actions really helpfull for edit filters? Even if we keep throttle above 4 or even 6 to 8,can some Edit filters give falls positives, even to genuine users, only because they previewed their edit several times ?
Mahitgar (
talk)
03:33, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
On mr-wiki one of particular edit filter has got relevant parameters for this discussion; A) action == "edit" and B) Number of actions to allow: = 4 actions . In atleast two instance of one user have been filtered in first edit itself,This particular user does lot of spell checking/correction but is not tech savy and probably due to his preview actions are getting counted as action and first attempt to save itself is getting throttled, and two such edit instances of this particular editor have given falls positive.
What happens if some user watches preview multiple times (Say more than 4 times in above case) before his first attempt to submit edit with save action ? Whether filter throttles such submission or not is the question I want to understand.
So before filing any bug I want to confirm if there is really a problem or not.
Rgds Mahitgar ( talk) 08:24, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
Among syntax options available for edit filter there is one option called "new_pst" given discription is :" New page wikitext,pre-save transformed . My question is how do we put this syntax to use ? edit filter example if it has been used already ?
Mahitgar ( talk) 05:41, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, its nice of you.
Mahitgar ( talk) 03:16, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Is there a way to calculate the maximum or minimum of two terms? I checked mw:Extension:AbuseFilter/Rules_format and couldn't find it. Thanks -- Chriswaterguy talk 23:29, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
I know which user this is meant to be preventing, but is this an FP? If so, is the filter too broad? Black Kite ( talk) 11:34, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
This edit prompted me with a message saying "Your edit includes new external links." and made me enter a CAPTCHA before I could save it. Looking at the diff, it's easy to see that is not the case. I went to report a false positive, but could not find this entry for my IP or the article in the Edit Filter log? Are some logs hidden? 96.236.155.40 ( talk) 01:59, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Looking at this filter log, an anonymous user is attempting to revert the addition of a wall of soapboxing from a talk page. Special:AbuseFilter/420 is supposed to throttle large anonymous deletions from talk pages at a rate of 1 per hour, but this user got disallowed on his first attempt. I wonder if this has something to do with the number of different filters to all call on him at the same time, but I don't have any real idea. Does anyone know what's going on? Someguy1221 ( talk) 21:24, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Filter 602 is not tagging with discretionary sanctions alert
as directed to do. However, as you see after using its conditions at
Special:AbuseFilter/test and my username under 'Changes by user', the filter is correctly figured. Does anyone know why the filter is not logging and tagging?
AGK
[•]
00:32, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
FWIW, this appears to be a false positive. Yaris678 ( talk) 18:10, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
I just glance at my filter log out of passing curiosity, and I wondered how this edit and two subsequent edits tripped filter 554 "top100 blog charts". The topic seems about as far removed from the sorts of articles where this filter might catch legitimate results as it's possible to get. Also, is a filter that's had >12,000 hits (including bots and other edits that clearly aren't what it's aimed at) since last May actually doing anything useful? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:08, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I'm a sysop on zhwiki, and we have a lot of filters copied from here over time. However I've found that vandals often find ways to bypass our filters and we have to improvise, but the enwiki equivalent had been set to private. So I request this permission for viewing purpose only, I don't intend to edit anything here. Thanks. Jimmy Xu ( talk) 09:16, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
This filter (Repeated attempts to vandalize) is getting hit a lot by new users trying The Wikipedia Adventure. See here for instance. I've not investigated fully, but I don't think this is vandalism, and may be deterring new users? — SMALL JIM 17:49, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello there! I'm a Veteran Editor quite active in recent patrolling and antivandalism on Wikipedia. This request for permission is based on the usefulness access to the edit filter management group will have for me in my duties. I currently have the permissions of rollbacker, reviewer and autopatrolled and can be trusted not to abuse the tools. Thanks in advance. — This lousy T-shirt — ( talk) 15:00, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
When patrolling, I've found that new users sometimes add their signatures in articles. I have no idea why, but it happens fairly often. So I decided to add a filter that would prompt a friendly warning, that is, assuming you can make custom warnings?
It's been running in idle for almost 12 hours, with five hits, four of them are correct. The other was with
this edit and not the
previous edit which was the one that actually had the signature in it. I'm using added_lines
to inspect the change. edit_diff
didn't seem to be the right one, and edit_diff_pst
(which I could use to match ~~~~) seemed to cause the query to time out. I can't figure out why... anyone know what I'm doing wrong? Thanks —
MusikAnimal
talk
14:39, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello there, MusikAnimal. I am an administrator on Swedish Wikipedia, where I work on the edit filters. Our equivalent of this filter is working perfectly, and it just so happens that it's a filter I've been working on. I can see that you had to delete filter 613, so I'd like to share ours and explain how it works.
(article_namespace %2 == 0) & !(article_namespace == 4) & !("bot" in user_groups) & ("~~~" in added_lines) & !(old_wikitext rlike "~~~") & !(added_lines irlike "<nowiki>~+<\/nowiki>|{{(information\skommer|(bearbetning\s|arbete\s)?på(går|börjad)|(pågående|ständiga)\suppdateringar)") & !(article_prefixedtext rlike "Användare:.+\/") & !( "Användare:" + user_name == article_prefixedtext)
The first line tells the filter to divide the namespace index with two, and if the result is zero, it should continue. An exception is made for ns-4 (the Wikipedia namespace).
The second line excludes bots (I'm not actually sure this is needed thanks to line six, but is doesn't hurt either).
The third line checks if three tildes are added.
The fourth line makes an exception if three tildes are present in the old wikitext.
The fifth line makes an exception if one or more tildes are added within nowiki tags, or
a certain template (or any of its redirects) is added telling others that the page is under construction (the template uses tildes as parameters to show others who is editing the article and when the template was added). If you don't have any such templates on this project, simply leave out |{{(information\skommer|(bearbetning\s|arbete\s)?på(går|börjad)|(pågående|ständiga)\suppdateringar).
The sixth line makes an exception to subpages in the user namespace. You'll want to change Användare to User.
The seventh line makes an exception when a user signs on his or her own user page. Again, you'll want to change Användare to User.
So, assuming you don't have any templates that uses tildes as parameters, a working filter on this project would be:
(article_namespace %2 == 0) & !(article_namespace == 4) & !("bot" in user_groups) & ("~~~" in added_lines) & !(old_wikitext rlike "~~~") & !(added_lines irlike "<nowiki>~+<\/nowiki>") & !(article_prefixedtext rlike "User:.+\/") & !( "User:" + user_name == article_prefixedtext)
I should probably mention that you can't test this filter using the tools, because of how the tildes transform upon saving, but it does work live.
Finally, regarding the warnings you asked about: Yes, as an administrator you can edit and create new warnings and tags for the edit filter. You can see a list of warning messages here and a list of tags here. Nirmos ( talk) 04:46, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
I've noticed that edits never seem to have more than one tag that is generated by an edit filter. For instance, I've seen lots of page-blanking edits that are tagged with possible vandalism even though blanking would also normally apply but does not. For another example, have a look at the history of Sauli Niinistö: many of the recent edits were correctly tagged as possible BLP issue or vandalism. The vandal also reverted ClueBot NG several times, so the tag reverting anti-vandal bot should also have applied. But for some reason, it did not.
So I'm wondering: are tags generated by edit filters mutually exclusive? If so, is this by design? -- Ixfd64 ( talk) 18:29, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi all,
There is consensus developing over at Wikipedia talk:AFC#Edit filter for an edit filter to be used to help enforce use of the script to only those who meet the criteria which has been agreed on per several RfC's, and is listed here. This follows several recent occerances of SPA's using the script to mass-move pages to cause disruption. Ideally, the filter should pick up edits tagged with the string "afch" in the edit summary (in either lower or upper case), as it is added automatically by the use of the script. It may also be worth limiting this to draft space only, to limit any false positives. If you would like any more information, please let me know. -- Mdann 52 talk to me! 16:37, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
There seems to be some conflation here, and I'm sorry I didn't notice it earlier. The discussion here apparently refers to a much broader edit filter, the discussion that is linked at WT:AFC refers to an edit filter protecting only the AfC qualified reviewer list. A single URL. This distinction may or may not be important, but it was my view that FP on the participant list was an unnecessary impediment to getting more reviewers working at AfC, and I personally believe that the lack of timely reviews there is a situation which significantly degrading our ability to attract new editors--people who go to AfC now often have to wait over a month for a review. This is just nuts, and full protecting the participant list would make it worse. -- j⚛e decker talk 18:14, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
:(3x edit coflict) OK, so lets reform here---you want an edit filter that prevents ONE PAGE from being editing unless the username is on a list? How often is this page editing? Why can't protection and requests to change be utilized (much like the AWB checklist)? — xaosflux Talk 18:43, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
article_articleid == 12438036 & user_editcount < 500 & user_age < 7776000
Hello, I'm a sysop on hiwiki, which is suffering with a shortage of active editors and hence needs stricter edit filters to keep vandalism in check. Compared to enwiki, the number of such filters on hiwiki is very small. I am looking to import a few filters, some of which have been set to private here. I request this permission for viewing the conditions and content of the filters. I don't intend to make any edits on enwiki. Thank You! Shubhamkanodia ( talk)
Is it possible to request that an overly restrictive filter be seriously looked at? — 174.141.182.82 ( talk) 16:14, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello all,
I requested an edit filter at the end of may without any response yet. Is there anything I could do to improve the chances of a response? Thanks for any comments, -- Null Drei Null talk 16:16, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
I think we need a more specialized warnong for this filter - I've seen several false positive reports which seem to object to these edits being described as "unconstructive", especially when it's only a small piece of an otherwise plausable edit. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
I wonder if there's a way I could prevent one filter to show up for me (on fiwiki). I don't like to see those warning texts when saving pages. The edit filter is about possible forgotten signature ( this one). -- Stryn ( talk) 17:39, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Hmm, what is this edit filter do? I don't know what happen that users edit on talk pages may identify as an unconstructive edit that was blocked by an automatic edit filter? That should work on them! -- Allen talk 01:36, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi! I have some questions concerning the condition limit in the edit filter. The condition limit is a restriction concerning how much and complex filter code that is allowed to be executed before the edit filter stops executing filter code for that edit, i.e. it is not a time limit. I guess that the condition limit has been the same since the edit filter was introduced 5 ½ years ago. During this period, the hardware that the edit filter is running on has reasonably at least doubled its speed (only a guess). If that is the case, we now allow the filter code to run during at most approximately half the time or even less for each edit compared to when the edit filter was introduced. Couldn't it be possible to increase the condition limit from the current value 1000 for this reason? Another question: Is it possible for each language to decide its own condition limit? (I am working with the Swedish edit filter, not the English one.) A final question: It seems like a project is going on with the purpose to replace the condition limit with a time limit. If that is the case, when is that work expected to be finished? Svensson1 ( talk) 20:55, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi
I had to revdel this edit a couple of days ago. I then went to check the edit filter for this user and noticed that none of the filters had picked up on anything. Surely one of the filters should have picked up on this vandalism? 5 albert square ( talk) 19:37, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm working on a 'mild block' proposal that is to classic block what pending changes protection is to classic protection. I'm posting here because it is suggested that the edit filter be granted the ability to pending changes block (as well as users in a new usergroup, and some anti-vandalism bots). My draft is at User:Cenarium/PCB and I welcome any input before going ahead with the proposal. If there are any technically minded users, I'd particularly appreciate feedback on the suggested implementation. Cenarium ( talk) 22:08, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Is there a way for a filter to take an action only after an account or IP triggers the criteria on multiple edit attempts? (Not necessarily on the same pagename, as spammers typically try a different pagename each time.)
E.g. a spammer makes 30 attempts to create a spam page and are prevented each time, but on the 31st attempt they are successful. Instead, is there a way to block them after the nth attempt? (E.g. on the 15th attempt.)
This is for a non-Wikipedia wiki. Maybe the answer is that we need some other kind of bot in addition to our AbuseFilter? Many thanks. -- Chriswaterguy talk 04:14, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I have been fighting against LTA named 대우건설 ( Report about this user on meta and enwiki report) globally since Jan 2014. Today, I requested MusikAnimal to create new filter to prevent his socking patterns (I believe, nobody with Korean knowledge would speak "GO AWAY FUCKING MAN" on enwiki except vandals) and he created Special:Abusefilter/648 (private). I would like to see the abuselog of this filter and amend new patterns as needed. I am sysop on Korean Wikipedia, Commons, Meta-wiki, Wikidata, and two small wikis, and have touched few abusefilters. — Revi 13:10, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
I've created a discussion on tagging these edits, and showing the pages on Special:NewPages and Special:NewPagesFeed; please contribute here: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Proposed_technical_change:_show_pages_expanded_from_redirects_on_Special:NewPages_and_Special:NewPagesFeed. — Swpb talk 21:21, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I am working with the Swedish edit filter and I have investigated how the edit filter works when several warnings are displayed simultaneously. It seems to work well when two filters show a warning and tag the edit. One warning appears below the other. But when three or four warnings shall be shown it only works sometimes. It seems to depend on in which order the things in the article that the filters react on are placed. Sometimes all the three or four warnings are shown simultaneously and the edit is correct tagged. But sometimes only two warnings are shown and only two tags are added to the edit despite it should be more. This is not so good since it can be a very important filter, maybe the most important filter, which warning not is shown and which tag not is added to the edit. Svensson1 ( talk) 15:26, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Forgive me if this is written somewhere obvious, I couldn't find it, but are admins ok to give themselves the edit filter user right without formal request? Sam Walton ( talk) 11:51, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I've just tried to re-enable Special:AbuseFilter/425, but can't: I get the error "You cannot edit this filter, because it contains one or more restricted actions. Please ask a user with permission to add restricted actions to make the change for you." Which is surprising, because I'm an admin on enwiki, and also have the "edit filter manager" permission set (I've just re-checked this, just to make sure). Can anyone please let me know what I should be doing to be able to edit edit filters again? -- The Anome ( talk) 23:25, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Hey, can someone with previous experience or the ability to look through the edit filters help me figure out why
WikiLove messages
are being tagged as possible vandalism? — {{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
17:36, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
The test page says that it checks the past 100 edits but if you enter a user to test against it doesn't seem to follow an obvious constraint, other than not testing against edits from some time ago. What's the length of this time and why is there a limit? i.e. Why can't I check the past 100 edits made by a user or IP up to any time ago? Sam Walton ( talk) 16:04, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
One of the conditions of this filter is user_editcount < 15
, and yet the filter caught
this edit, by an admin with closer to 150,000 edits than 15. In fact, as far as I can tell, the only condition that was met was the use of "fuck you" in the edit summary. Could somebody more competent than me look into this? Thanks,
HJ Mitchell |
Penny for your thoughts?
16:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
As mentioned here and here a few of us are confused about how the condition limit works. Could we get some input either at MediaWiki or here on what the condition limit actually refers to and whether we're exceeding some set limit? As I say at MusikAnimal's talk page, it seems some filters are failing to flag edits which should have been flagged per the test interface. Sam Walton ( talk) 22:15, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Glad we're getting somewhere with this! @ Samwalton9: Special:AbuseFilter/613 is a good-faith filter. This happens by accident so many times I decided to make a filter to inform the user that ~~~~ was in the wikitext, and to ensure they wanted to save it (often the rest of the edit is fully constructive). On the other hand, the more restrictive Special:AbuseFilter/623 I believe was aimed at a sockpuppet, but after seeing how well it performed in disallowing vandalism in general, with coincidentally very low false positives, it was just left as is. You may be able to still combine it with some other general vandalism filter, though.
About the "filters for deletion"... note also that it may require SPI-related discussions to take place, which at least for some we'd would need to be careful not to convey details about the filters' implementation.
I think the technical aspects about the condition limit issue is still unclear. That archived discussion was five years ago, with all the upgraded machinery we surely can handle a bigger payload and be able increase that condition limit if even a tad. I'd like to get WMF clarification on this, I've tried at mw:Extension_talk:AbuseFilter#Condition_limit and repeatedly on #wikimedia-tech connect. Perhaps we should open a phab report? — MusikAnimal talk 20:31, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
The condition limiter is a somewhat ad hoc tool for preventing performance problems. In my personal opinion it should be removed and replaced with a total runtime limit. To the extent that you want to worry about performance, execution times are generally better measure to be thinking about. Also, the per filter reporting of condition numbers is completely wonky / broken and should not be considered accurate in any way. So don't necessarily rely on those numbers when identifying problems. (Unfortunately, the per filter time numbers are also somewhat broken.)
That said, the condition limiter is the current thing that we use, so it is worthwhile to understand it. The condition limit is (more or less) tracking the number of boolean operands + number of function calls + number of function parameters + the number of parenthetical conditions entered. However, it is also smart enough to bypass functions and parenthetical groups if the value doesn't matter. For example, in the expression A & B, the details of B are only evaluated is A is true. For that reason it is beneficial to performance to put simple limiting conditions, e.g. checks for article namespace, in front of more complex expressions. Also, parentheses are usually your friend even though entering them can count against you. Lastly, I should note that function calls are cached, so they only add to the condition count the first time a specific function result is asked for.
For a practical example, consider filter 59:
article_namespace == 6 & !("autoconfirmed" in user_groups) & !(user_name in article_recent_contributors) & rcount ("\{\{.*\}\}", removed_lines) > rcount ("\{\{.*\}\}", added_lines)
This can be simplified as:
Let's consider the branching chart:
So, that filter runs from 4 conditions if the first operation is false to 12 conditions if every operation must be evaluated.
Now consider an alternative construction with explicit parentheses for groups and removing excess parentheses around the "in" operations:
article_namespace == 6 & ( ! "autoconfirmed" in user_groups & ( ! user_name in article_recent_contributors & rcount ("\{\{.*\}\}", removed_lines) > rcount ("\{\{.*\}\}", added_lines) ) )
This can be simplified as:
Let's consider the branching chart:
So, that filter runs from 2 conditions if the first operation is false to 12 conditions if every operation must be evaluated. If the initial condition is rarely true, as article_namespace == 6 probably is, then the modified filter will consume only two conditions in most runs, compared to 4 conditions in the example without explicit parentheses. Stacking easy to evaluate but hard to match conditions at the front of a filter will generally improve run times and reduce condition usage. In most cases, the use of explicit parentheses also helps the edit filter parser more efficiently determine branching and also reduce both condition counts and runtimes. Dragons flight ( talk) 04:54, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
I spent a chunk of time reformatting a number of the active filters to add explicit parentheses and to place exclusionary criteria at the front. Right now 0.15% of actions are exceeding the condition limit, down from about 10% when I started. Hopefully I didn't introduce any errors in the process. Dragons flight ( talk) 12:56, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
There seems to be an issue where a revised filter can show very high average conditions (600+) despite being simple, and having a run time of c. 0.3 ms. Coming back later the average conditions reduce to something sensible like 2. Is this a known issue? All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough, 21:56, 17 February 2015 (UTC).
Do we have an accurate definition of what specials this removes? All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough, 23:01, 18 February 2015 (UTC).
preg_replace( '/[^\p{L}\p{N}]/u', '', $s );
where $s
is the initial string. I believe that translates to "remove everything that isn't either a letter or a number" as evaluated by PHP's unicode compliant definition of what are letters and numbers.
Dragons flight (
talk)
23:12, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Feel like these edits [39] (admin viewable only) could be used to add to Filter 58, bit surprised they weren't caught already-- Jac16888 Talk 16:26, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Those two checks are probably the two most used by the filters. Which should come first ? In the running filters I've checked, the autoconfirmed check seems to come first a bit more often than the mainspace check but there's no clear winner. If we've got enough information and experience to make a performance determination, then the conditions should be in that same order for all filters. I've also noticed that filters sometimes check for "confirmed", and sometimes for "autoconfirmed". Since we only get very few edits by users in the confirmed usergroup, it should come down to whether checking for "autoconfirmed" (an exact match) is faster than checking for "confirmed". Cenarium ( talk) 06:51, 25 February 2015 (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. |
Can 220 be set back to warning people if they are about to add an external link as an image? I think it would be really useful if they could be informed to upload files if they trip this filter, resulting in less trouble for all of us. Regards So Why 12:04, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Can somebody add the words " wimpy", "wuss" and "wuss rock" to the filter 384? The problem is that a person from Columbus, Ohio has abused on this by months. S/He started at the mentioned article (a place where s/he lives) removing an "offensive" nickname " Cowtown". You can see all the history and since January 2011 it has been the same. Then s/he moved to Cowtown, another page protected against him/her. Then s/he started moving to music-related pages. Here is a list:
A place:
And I can continue, but I think that with those pages is enough. I have enough with this user, after six months of blocks, re-blocks and rangeblocks, he has nit done good contributions. Could you please add those words to that filter, or any other? Thanks. Tbhotch. ™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 02:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm receiving a lot of false positives thanks to the detection of this filter to the common auto-generated edit summary "New userpage through Outreach:ACIP" which is basically linked back to people who happen to use our outreachwiki, and I highly suspect that it is due to the outreach string tripping up the filter. Can we please remove it from the filter while this edit summaries are still in place, and until outreach can come to its senses? TeleComNasSprVen ( talk • contribs) 16:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Could somebody modify the "possible BLP issue or vandalism" filters to catch this sort of thing (not visible to non-admins). Thanks. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:38, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
I wish to create a filter that checks the old_wikitext
of a page for {{templatename|currentyear|currentmonthname|currentdate}}
. The only way I can do this AFAICT is to use modular arithmetic on the timestamp
, and, for the month name, using :=
with a switch (or if there are no switches then successive ternary operators). (a) Is there a better way? (b) If that is the only way, then how terribly expensive is such a check? (This is not on enWP.)—
msh210℠
19:32, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
"pattern"+year+"\|"+
, etc.). Does that work with rlike
? with contains
? by some other means?—
msh210℠
20:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC)( lcase(old_wikitext) contains '{{templatename|2011' ) & ( /* expensive conversion here: timestamp -> month & date */ )
"a"+1
in
Special:AbuseFilter/tools on your wiki. —
AlexSm
21:00, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
'abc' contains 'a'+'b'+'d'
evaluates to 1bd
, so there's an order-of-operations issue. And trying 'abc' contains ('a'+'b'+'d')
doesn't work (evaluates to ∅, as does if ('abc' contains ('a'+'b'+'d')) then 1 else 0 end
).—
msh210℠
21:21, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
'abc' contains ('a'+'b'+'c')
works fine. —
AlexSm
01:21, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
20110901...
while what we have is
Unix time. —
AlexSm
01:21, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
See contributions for User:60.52.43.195 -- this should have been caught by three different filters (17, 58, and 264), and is showing as a hit for each of those filters, yet the edit was allowed. The condition limits don't seem to be a problem right now. Any ideas? Thanks, NawlinWiki ( talk) 14:56, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Filter 420 may cause many false positives. I think it might be best to just tag the edits, removing the rate limit. — Kudu ~I/O~ 22:43, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Am I being dumb, or is this a bug? Black Kite (t) (c) 23:34, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
I recently designed this edit filter who's code is below
(article_text) 'User:ClueBot NG/Run' &(removed_lines) rlike "{{TrueItrue|False|false) ! (added_lines) rlike "{{TrueItrue|False|false}})
The filter is designed to run on the page User:ClueBot NG/Run and block vandals from changing the page to something other than "True" and "False." The page is the "switch" for ClueBot NG. While the bot can be blocked if it malfunctions, from this discussion, the users in this discussion seem to draw that if administrators can already block this bot if it malfunctions, than this page is intended for non-admins to turn off the bot in case it malfunctions. If this filter goes into effect, the action taken should be "disallow".
(article_text) 'User:ClueBot NG/Run' &(added_lines) rlike "{{False|false}})
This filter should warn editors that they are changing the filter to "false" that they should only turn it off if the bot appears to be malfunctioning.
Now, I do not have access to Edit Filter rights so I have no idea if these codes would work as I cannot access the Batch testing page. Hopefully the people that do, will fix the codes up and test it out and run it live. Thanks. OpenInfoForAll ( talk) 00:11, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
I requested here the addition of the words "wuss rock" (a degrading way to call pop rock/punk rock/power ballad/soft rock music) because of the long-term abuse of an editor from Columbus, Ohio. The filter worked for months, but now s/he decided to add a "-" between these words. The filter is not working as desired with this little change and now s/he returned with "wuss-rock". I know that as now there have been only two attacks with this, but there are enogh evidence that this user won't cooperate and will continue. If it is possible to add to the filter 384 would be appreciated. Tbhotch. ™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 21:06, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Done. --
zzuuzz
(talk)
11:49, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
As you may be aware, the edit filter is now enabled on all wikis. en.wikibooks admin/'crat/CU here; I was hoping for emailed content (or temporary access) for:
I'm hoping these additional/updated filters will reassure those wishing they could block unregistered users from editing. – Adrignola talk 02:51, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Not meant to be an RfC; that's why titled the section as RfV. Recently, the sysop right was removed from various inactive sysops, with a note that they could have it back in case they wished. Should we (or should we not) take up the same exercise for inactive sysops and other inactive users with respect to their abusefilter-modify/abusefilter-view-private rights? Wifione Message 07:15, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
After
Supreme facepalm of destiny-ing
ICONic Boyz, I noticed that the creator copy-and-pasted the tagline. Could something detect "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" in the first few lines of a new page creation, and mark it with something like "Tag: Possible A10"? →
Σ
τ
c.
01:08, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Is there any reason why this filter needs to be flagged as private?
(This came up on a mediawiki talk; I'll notify the users who've edited it of this thread too)
Chzz ► 10:28, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
We have filter 225 for vandalism in all caps and filter 437 for titles in caps. I just ran accross this edit and was wondering what people think of a filter for edits in all caps. I'm not sure it should be disallowed, but maybe it should be tagged. Perhaps if 5 or more words were in caps. I don't know regex so I'm not sure if that's possible. Anyway, I'd like to get input here before making a request. Thanks. - Hydroxonium ( T• C• V) 07:15, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
I wonder why this wasn't apparently picked up by a filter? Chzz ► 12:28, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
To the best of my understanding, we use the edit filter for the purpose of tracking bad edits (even if done in good faith). In fact, I believe that this discussion, about Filter 200, is an excelent precedent for this. Filter 423 seems to be a violation of this idea - as most use of WikiLove is probably good. What do other users think about this? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
I cleaned up
WP:EF/R. I'd like to know if any of the EF managers are going to work on the requests from 2010 (i.e. requests that are older than 1 year)? If the answer is no, I'll archive all those requests as Not done. -
Hydroxonium (
T•
C•
V)
19:40, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Is there any way, in the Wikipedia talk:Sandbox, to override the filter? I think it would be a good exception if you could override the filter while clearing the Sandbox. 71.146.20.62 ( talk) 00:45, 21 November 2011 (UTC) (Note: Copied from top)
How the hell was this huge section blanking not caught? Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 20:57, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
length(added_lines) < 1
. This means that if the user added any content, or changed any content, or moved it from one place to an other, this filter (
Filter 172) doesn't catch it.
עוד מישהו
Od Mishehu
11:47, 24 November 2011 (UTC)Hi, it think this might be an easy catch [1]. - DePiep ( talk) 00:04, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
This could be pretty useful for proactive cleanup, using the "warn" feature to notify editors of WP:MOS expectations and stuff. Any occurrence of "irregardless" or "Irregardless" that is not in italics or quotations marks or inside a quotation template; that sort of thing. I'd love to see it catch all cases of "aka" as a string by itself ("aka" not being a word in English; I don't care if you do it as AKA or a.k.a., but it's not "aka"). Even allowing quoted cases might still be too restrictive for a string this simple, though <sigh>. "[I|i]rregardless" seems like an easy one, though. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 23:09, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am picking up anti-vandalism experience, I am a rollbacker, never blocked and I think this would be an interesting right to have. I love doing anti-vandalism work, and I would love working behind the scenes of it. Paolo Napolitano 20:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
I've disabled 139 for now because it's attracting a lot of false positives, and they're the worst kind of false positives—like this brand new editor being prevented from writing an article. It's also catching a lot of potentially dodgy but seemingly good-faith edits where disallowing isn't appropriate in my opinion. Could somebody more proficient with filters please go through the log and then try to make the filter more specific—preventing every edit that uses fixed position markup is clearly not working. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:38, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Can someone please take a look at WP:AN/I, and try to find out why filter 139 hasn't been catching the recent racist template vandalism? Please be careful viewing the diffs given there: they cover the content with an invisible image that clickjacks every link to racist sites which may well also contain malware, even in preview mode. In the meantime, I've turned filter 453 back on, which is simpler, and should perhaps have a better chance of catching it? -- The Anome ( talk) 00:45, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
This is hardly subtle, so I'm thinking it might be possible to tack it onto the end of a filter somewhere, but I don't know my way around filters well enough to do it myself. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:42, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am actively involved in anti-vandalism efforts here. I am an Autopatroller, Reviewer, Rollbacker, File mover, and Account creator here. I identified to the WMF 03:06, 2012 February 7 (UTC). — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 04:59, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
'autopatrolled'
, 'filemover'
, and 'reviewer'
) makes me even more concerned. Maybe I'm assuming too much bad faith (in which case other EFMs and editors will support you), but this is just too much for me to ignore.
Reaper Eternal (
talk)
16:46, 24 February 2012 (UTC)Um, I personally don't care about the flag collecting. I don't know if that's what you're doing, or if you're the kind of person who gets really interested in one field of the 'pedia and then moves on to another, which is a totally good-faith way to accidentally collect lots of hats. Anyway, what I care more about is that you show some kind of competence so we know you're not going to blow up the filter system. Someguy1221 ( talk) 08:49, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Jeff G., you haven't explained why you want this userright, only that you feel entitled to it. Are there specific abuse filters you wish to write or change? Do you have a need to see the code of filters set to private? You can already see how the filters work by looking at the public ones. Or put another way, can you link us to your past successful requests for filters or filter changes (if you already know what you're doing, it's simpler to just give you the bit)? Franamax ( talk) 12:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello, I'd like to request edit filter manager rights for the purposes of viewing filters only. I occasionally set up abusefilters on smaller wikis to prevent vandalism/spam, and I'd like to see what some of the enwiki filters do for that. Unfortunately, almost all of the filters that would actually be useful to me are marked as private, thus the need for the ability to view them. Like all permissions, I'll have this removed when I don't need it any more. Thanks, Ajraddatz ( Talk) 17:23, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
I would like to be able to edit the filter, as I am making a filter myself ( User:Tomtomn00/editfilter.js). I have over 2000 edits and I am very active on recent changes. ~ ⇒TomTom N00 @ 13:14, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Not done, per Ajraddatz and MBisanz's comments above.
28bytes (
talk)
20:19, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Is there an EFM flag that allows viewing (but not editing) the filters? Salvidrim! 10:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
All my AbuseFilter work is on another wiki ( Appropedia) - I don't have the privileges here, so I can't look at other filters to see how it's done. I wonder if someone could help me, or suggest another place to ask - I've tried on mw:Extension talk:AbuseFilter but it's awfully quiet there.
Any help is much appreciated. I'm having a lot of success with this fantastic tool, but coding it has involved a lot of trial and error. -- Chriswaterguy talk 18:28, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
(4 < EXPR) && (EXPR < 9)
foo := "sfgdsgf"
age_in_days := user_age/(24*3600); age_in_days < 100
user_age < 24*3600;
spamminess := "foo" in added_lines + "bar" in added_lines ;
spamminess >= 1
(user_age < 24*3600) & (spamminess := ("foo" in added_lines) + ("bar" in added_lines)); (spamminess >= 1)
I have a spam filter (that I use on Appropedia) based on a scoring system - if it's above 10, it's blocked. Sometimes I get a weird result, and it takes ages to debug it. Just working out the score takes a while (e.g. " >=10" matches, ">=20" matches, ">=30" fails, ">=25" matches...) Then I take out chunks of the scoring code, and see what the new score is (in the same stab-in-the-dark way) to eventually narrow down where the high score is coming from.
Surely there's a better way...? Thanks! -- Chriswaterguy talk 19:32, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
This edit was tagged by Filter 231, despite not being "nonsense characters". Salvidrim! 20:33, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
On this update, shouldn't all \1{6} have been changed to \1{7}? The first part is still detecting only 6 characters in the current version of the filter. Helder 20:05, 20 March 2012 (UTC) PS: this was copied from here.
Hi, I'd like to have this because I am getting more experienced on here, and I want to do more things on here. I would like to have more permissions to edits, and help fix filters. Like all permissions, I'll have this removed when I don't need it any more. DreamFieldArts Talk 13:50, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
In the context of a discussion of privacy issues related to the edit filter, one item that came up was listing non-sysops with editfiltermanager set. I'm not sure if such a list already exists, so I ran an API listing. 146 users are in the access group "abusefilter" and the following are not also in the "sysop" group (+ link to archived permission request):
Charitwo (granted by Slakr 23 Jun 2011)
Chzz (
16 Oct 2009)
EdoDodo (
19 Sep 2010)
Fran Rogers (ex-admin, self-granted 20 Oct 2009)
Mayur (
8 Dec 2011)
Netalarm (
21 Aug 2010)
Pek the Penguin (self-granted by Optimist on the run to non-secure alt account)
Petrb (granted by PeterSymonds 15 Oct 2011)
Prodebot (Prodego temp experiment)
Sole Soul (
15 Sep 2010)
Tim1357 (
26 Apr 2010)
UncleDouggie (
?? Oct 2010)
Vito Genovese (
17 Jan 2010)
Perhaps occasional review would be a good idea, to confirm that these users still need this access level? Franamax ( talk) 21:40, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Just a side note, for those who might not have kept track. Wifione Message 07:57, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I am requesting that WP:FLTR be added to the shortcuts. I know this page is not fully protected, however, I am not at the privilege level to make an edit to this page. Thanks. 75.53.218.81 ( talk) 04:03, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Does the filter that catches removed speedy deletion templates cover:
If not, could the filter be made to catch them? → Σ τ c. 00:34, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Special:AbuseFilter/39 (School libel and vandalism) is currently marked as private. It was public when I started it, then marked private, then I made it public again only for it to be marked private. I think there is no reason to have this filter private, but I'd like to get consensus about it. IMO it's a useful resource for recent changes patrol. The log is currently hidden to non-EFMs, which I think is a hindrance. I don't know if that's a temporary thing, but there are other reasons. The filter has no reason to be private. The intention of the filter is not to catch determined vandals, and I'm certain virtually every one of them has never heard of an edit filter. I'll bet most haven't even heard of Wikipedia. Vandalism really belongs in a different filter. Having the filter public allows other to offer suggestions as well as look at the log. It offers transparency as well as utility with no downside that I can see. Furthermore Special:AbuseFilter/189 which is almost identical in design and purpose is public. Your opinions, thanks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 09:05, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Hey all :). As part of developing Version 5 of the Article Feedback Tool, which includes text-based comments, we're drawing up a list of proposed abuse filters to apply to and integrate it. I would be very grateful if you could take part in the discussion; help with the implementation of proposed filters, propose new ones, and point out any issues you can see. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) ( talk) 18:59, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
AFTAB HUSSAIN (PAKISTAN) was written in all capital letters (later deleted) but this did not trigger filter 50. The user who created it was not autoconfirmed. jfd34 ( talk) 11:09, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
!"autoconfirmed" in user_groups
which means that it triggers for autoconfirmed users.
Dipankan (
Have a chat?)
10:57, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
!"autoconfirmed" in user_groups
mean it triggers for non-autoconfirmed users? I did get the chance to have someone confirm the user who created the page wasn't autoconfirmed at the time of creation, so that condition should have been tripped, something else must not have matched.
JoeGazz84
♦
23:37, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
I mean, really? The abuse (edit) filter is for abuse, not for nice, WikiLove giving. -- Tomtomn00 ( talk • contributions) 20:24, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Open proxies re-code some characters passing through them, and I thought this can be used in a log-only edit filter like
contains_any(string(added_lines),"%2", "incloak.com")
%2 is rather common for open proxies [8] [9] whereas incloak.com is one of the (many?) sites used to recode html addresses [10]. Suggestions? Other strings? Materialscientist ( talk) 06:14, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
I see what I want but need help with coding: the task is to filter (log-only) addition of the exact text string
%2
into one of the
ref name=
operators on any page [11] [12] - this is what proxies do (provided the ref name operator contains space, full stop, comma or similar symbol. Note that ref name=XXX can have slightly different syntax (with/without spaces and with/without quotes or slash, like <ref name=cia> or <ref name = "cia" />), and the targeted %2 symbol can be anywhere in the XXX string. The choice of %2 is because proxies use different coding: say, full stop may be coded as %252E or %2E. Materialscientist ( talk) 06:43, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
If I enter a filter ID into the relevant field of Special:AbuseLog, e.g. 135, it works and shows only hits to that filter. But I can't find a way to show hits to a number of filters. I tried commas (e.g. "135,432"), ampersands, "OR", pipes... but nothing works.
This would be extremely useful if possible. Even a url hack would be great. Anyone know how? -- Chriswaterguy talk 06:31, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm considering filing a BRFA so I can make a bot that automatically archives the false positive page and sorts it by whether the reports have or have not been actioned. Currently, I'm doing this manually. Any thoughts? Reaper Eternal ( talk) 01:54, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Is there any reason why EF/R is _not_ NOINDEXed? I can think of a lot of good reasons why we should NOINDEX it, but can't think of any reasons why it shouldn't be. 64.40.54.240 ( talk) 09:12, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
I've noticed that the WP:EF/R page is currently being responded to mostly by one or two users, looks like it could use some help. I am very comfortable with regex (almost all of my toolserver tools use it pretty extensively), and would be willing to help out. I'll admit I'm new to the AbuseFilter extension syntax, but I've been reading up on it and it seems pretty straightforward. It would likely take me a little while to ramp up and become comfortable with actually committing new filters, but it looks like it is easy enough to test out new filters before committing them. Thanks. -Scottywong | speak _ 16:49, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Need help with added_lines. A simplified example: contains_any(added_lines, "%25") returns 1 when applied to this only because some text was changed around the %25 string, whereas the purpose is to catch addition of %25 string (Note: my actual operator is added_lines rlike "ref name\s?=.{0,15}%[23]", but the problem is same; I use [13] against 112.204.31.194). Materialscientist ( talk) 08:13, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
(added_lines contains "%25") & !(removed_lines contains "%25")
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the logs used to show you 'which' (i.e., the number) edit filter was tripped, even if it was a hidden filter? I noticed my bot tripped some, and it only shows the filter numbers for visible filters? Am I misremembering this, or was there a change? Avic ennasis @ 10:13, 12 Sivan 5772 / 10:13, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
A spambot is getting past Special:AbuseFilter/271 eg http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Board_of_Admiralty&diff=prev&oldid=497983981, so can some on add "lingerie" to the list? Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 21:03, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
As per my original request, I'd like to be reinstated. I am active again following a period of absence due to family matters, and I need the rights right now in order to work on our filters. Please note that my original pledge remains.
Vito Genovese 16:34, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Hello.
I have had, on several occasions, the edit filter warn me (inaccurately) that I am adding a protection template to an unprotected page when in fact the edit filter is triggering a false message. I have noticed that it is falsely notifying me of doing this when I attempt to edit move-protected pages which have the move protection template. It detects that I am saving the page with the protection template (which already exists), and that the page is not protected in a traditional manner, such as semi-protection, which it is evidently programmed to spot. In that case, this filter needs to be adjusted to recognize pages that are move-protected as well. Thank you. 70.248.186.239 ( talk) 02:04, 21 June 2012 (UTC), copied here 03:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi,
I am a long time editor ( contribs on en wiki) and also a crat on Marathi language wikipedia .On Marathi language wikipedia and few other wikis I mainly work on newbie support and building help pages and wikipedia values awareness campaigns. Presently my area of concentration is AbuseFilter development and related help pages on Marathi language wikipedia and now we are in need of already developed filters including the private ones you guys have over here.
I have already studied and used some of publicly available AFM used on en wikipedia, besides I used filter info publicly available available on de and fr wikipedia. I need to access even the private filters for comparative study and to be able to export them if found usefull, and file enhancement bugs for features currently not available ( my little participation on bugzilla) . As earlier stated I am an admin and crat on Marathi language Wikipedia and admin on two wiktionaries , I am a Wikimedian for over 8 years, so I can be trusted.
I hereby pledge that I will not make a single EFM edit (feel free to revoke the right if you see me editing them), and if I decide to work on them after gaining some experience, I will ask for an additional permission here. I'd normally go for a temporary access, but the filters are constantly developed, and I anticipate that I'll have to check them regularly in order for us to be in synch.
Thanks and Regards
Mahitgar ( talk) 02:02, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Filter 479 is currently set to block users from adding the example image to an article. I vaguely recall this being one of the earliest filters created, and that it was disbanded for some reason I don't remember. That early filter caught not only the example image but basically anything that could be added by hitting a button on the edit toolbar, that had no place in an article - '''Bold text''', ''Italic text'', etc. So my question to the other edit filter managers is, is this something we now want? Should Filter 479 start catching all such mistakes, or only specific ones? Should it be set to warn, block, both, tag, nothing? Thanks. Someguy1221 ( talk) 21:12, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
I should like to be judged suitable to be granted permission. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones ( talk) 18:28, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
This filter is tripped whenever someone removes a level 2 header. Often, there are legitimate reasons for doing so. I propose that this filter should be configured to detect if there was an edit summary or not explaining why the level 2 header was removed. Electric Catfish 14:28, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Would someone mind unchecking (Article Feedback) Auto-flag as abuse on filter 458. As discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Article_Feedback_Tool/Version_5#Lots_of_stuff_is_being_incorrectly_automatically_marked_as_abuse and Wikipedia_talk:Article_Feedback_Tool/Version_5#Automated_flagging_as_abuse the filter is generating too many false positives and at the moment we don't have a way to unflag something as abuse once flagged by the filter. Monty 845 13:16, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Can someone check this filter against this log? I can't see why it disallowed it. Black Kite ( talk) 20:01, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
What's the purpose of this filter? Electric Catfish 14:26, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello all, I have started to develop an edit filter with the aim of detecting edits made by spambots, which can be detected by certain "keywords" in either the edit summary or the text added to the page edited. I am currently active on SimpleWP, where I hold the positions of administrator, checkuser, bureaucrat, and oversighter. The problem I have is that SimpleWP is a wiki with a relatively low traffic volume, which makes testing edit filters more time intensive. I would therefore like to ask you as a community to grant me the privilege to see and change editfilters on this wikipedia, so that the editfilter can be tested and finetuned. The arrangement would be temporary until the filter works sufficiently well, that it can be used on other wikis. The filter in question is filter 30 on SEWP, which is private, for obvious reasons. Thanks for the consideration. -- Eptalon ( talk) 21:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi! I frequently patrol the abuse log and report people who repeatedly trip the filters to AIV. I would like to help you guys out with modifying the filters and fixing errors. However, what are the requirements to getting that user right? Thanks, Electriccatfish2 ( talk) 11:41, 16 July 2012 (UTC).
I'm an active contributor on the false positives reports, but I can do less these days because I cannot view the abuse log entries for private filters. I have knowledge of regex and the abuse filter syntax.-- Jasper Deng (talk) 17:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Why didn't this edit get tagged with the adding email address filter? It should be enabled in talk namespaces as well, especially for anonymous users who cannot configure an email address on their account. jfd34 ( talk) 06:41, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
This filter should also check the following code:
<span onmouseover="_tipon(this)" onmouseout="_tipoff()"><span class="google-src-text"
This code is sometimes automatically added by some browsers when viewing a Google-translated version of a page, and then clicking the edit link there. IE 8 adds this code, do not know if any other browsers have this problem. jfd34 ( talk) 10:58, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
To reduce clutter on the filter list, I've marked as deleted any filter that: 1) is currently disabled; 2) was last edited in 2011 or earlier; and 3) is not marked as a test filter. Any objections, just revert it. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:19, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
As a user, who is already experienced with abuse filters from several wikis and who is active in global and local vandalism fighting (which I sadly didn't have much time for in the last months), it would be a good thing for me to be able to edit abuse filters and to be able to see hidden ones (to be able to export them and to track down false-positives), over here. Furthermore, there are other, non-vandalism, use cases, like Special:AbuseFilter/485 which I come across, as I'm involved into technical matters and it would be great, if I could work on that myself. - Hoo man ( talk) 01:37, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
That was a fast one, thanks. Hoo man ( talk) 13:39, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
I can't see any reason why the latest exception on this filter was tripping it, seems an odd article to be included in that filter. Black Kite ( talk) 23:06, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
We're hitting it pretty badly now (~15% of all edits), so I'm going to make a list of filters that are expensive and see what we can do.
Thanks! Reaper Eternal ( talk) 16:23, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
I think we're now down to a much more acceptable ~0% of edits maxing out the condition limit. Reaper Eternal ( talk) 16:06, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm not an EFM yet, but Black Kite informed me that tripping the long-term pattern of abuse filter does not mean that the user has actually vandalized, the user has just edited in a pattern that vandals do. Please correct me if I'm wrong here, but Mr. Z-bot is reporting users who trip these filters to AIV and the reports are being declined. Can someone please look into this? Thanks, Electric Catfish 21:27, 14 August 2012 (UTC).
I've currently got filter 489 set up to log when IP users from particular address ranges edit, in an attempt to first track a particularly persistent vandal's activity, then, with appropriate content-based filter rules, to block their activities. 78.0.175.227 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) meets those criteria, but the filter seems to have triggered only once on their numerous recent edits, according to the edit log, yet back-testing the rule on all that IP's edits seems to catch them all. Can anyone tell me if I am doing something wrong? Is there some kind of throttling being applied here (perhaps on the logging end?), or is there a problem somewhere else that might account for this? Thanks. -- The Anome ( talk) 01:12, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Okay, so I've dealt with several filters:
Some expensive filters:
Reaper Eternal ( talk) 16:02, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Can anyone tweak the AFTv5 filters so that they can catch vandalism like [19], [20], [21], [22], and maybe even legal threats like this one? jfd34 ( talk) 16:15, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Hey, all, can edit filter 29 be updated to account for the template redirects that the new Page Curation tool uses? The full list can be found here. I think it would look something like:
(user_editcount < 50) &(lcase(removed_lines) rlike "{{db-[a-z0-9]{2,15}(\||}})|{{db\||{{db}}|{{speedy deletion-.+?}}") &!(lcase(added_lines) rlike "{{db-[a-z0-9]{2,15}(\||}})|{{db\||{{db}}|{{speedy deletion-.+?}}") &!(lcase(removed_lines) rlike "{{db-(self|blanked|auth|g7|user|owner|u1)}}|<nowiki>{{db|{{speedy deletion-author request}}|<nowiki>{{speedy deletion")
But someone should probably check this, since my previous experience with PCRE is slim-to-none. Thanks! Writ Keeper ⚇ ♔ 20:00, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Hey all
We're talking about upping the condition limit/percentage limit for AFT5 filters and AFT5 filters only, from 5 percent to 10 percent. Obviously we'll run it past ops first, but I wanted to give you guys a heads up and check we're not missing an obvious problem :). Okeyes (WMF) ( talk) 18:23, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Can anyone modify the filter (#225) to catch this? (replacing E with 3) jfd34 ( talk) 07:11, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
In filter 189 (BLP vandalism/libel) please change \bwank
to \bwank(a|er|ed|ing|s)?\b
to avoid false positives like
[23]
[24]
[25]
jfd34 (
talk)
05:30, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
There is a question at WP:AN about a long term abuse case whether IP can be an edit filter criteria. Specifically there are some things that might be caught by abuse filter but only within a specific set of IP ranges. Is this functionality possible? Shadowjams ( talk) 04:39, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi.
Lately, I've been working on some tools that would use the edit filter and have been constantly irritated at how many filters are set to private. Take User:Mr.Z-bot/filters.js for example. All of the filters considered immediate are set to private except for 139, which was specifically un-privated after I talked to an admin about it on IRC. For anyone trying to find/track serious vandals this gets annoying real fast. I understand that many of these filters are private because they're for LTAs and would be gamed if made public, but it still is annoying.
I've also been reporting a few bugs regarding the edit filter: bugzilla:42734 (Non-admins can see contents of deleted pages when viewing abusefilter details), bugzilla:42758 (AbuseFilter log events should show in the IRC feed), bugzilla:42802 (Query multiple filter logs at the same time in the API), and bugzilla:42814 (Abusefilter API does not check for abusefilter-view-private userright). Incidentally I wouldn't have noticed the last one if I did have the EFM right.
One of the things I'm currently working on is an IRC bot that tracks active vandals using the edit filter (working), and is able to accurately recommend blocks (not yet working). I believe this would be a major improvement over the current system in #wikipedia-en-abuse-log. It's currently about halfway done, you can PM me if you want access. If/when bug 42814 is closed, I won't be able to monitor private filters without the EFM right. Nor can I currently start tracking private filters, which are mainly for LTA's, if I can't see them.
As far as editing filters goes, I believe I am competent in regular expressions (having successfully run a number of bots) and have enough clue to know whats a good idea and not. But for the most part I don't plan on editing filters.
tl;dr: I would like the EFM permission to view private filters and build useful tools with the edit filter, not so much of editing actual filters. Legoktm ( talk) 06:32, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Done following 5 days of discussion with no objections.
28bytes (
talk)
19:02, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Any progress on this?: [ [26]] 68.50.128.91 ( talk) 08:26, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi all,
I have submitted a bug and changeset for edit filter log events to show up in the irc.wikimedia.org feed for enwp. Since these feeds are public, only public filters will be included. This will allow for bots/scripts to find out about filter trips as soon as they occur, rather than continually polling the API.
Thanks, Legoktm ( talk) 11:48, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
<rc-pmtpa> [[Special:Log/abusefilter]] hit * Username * Username triggered [[Special:AbuseFilter/##|filter ##]], performing the action "edit" on [[Pagename]]. Actions taken: Warn ([[Special:AbuseLog/#####|details]])
Hi all,
I wrote above that edit filter trips will start showing up in the irc.wikimedia.org recent changes feed. However this is only for public filters, not private ones. The only "non-public" information that would be shown (as compared to what Special:AbuseLog shows) would be the filter ## of what was tripped, and the log id. I believe that such information will not enable clever vandals to try and game the filters, however it would make it easier for tools/bots to track private filters. A slight code modification would be required to implement this, however I'm willing to write that. Thanks, Legoktm ( talk) 04:35, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Here, a good edit is rejected because of the paragraph above, which was already there and presumably added before the edit filter existed. Is this a bug, and does it need fixing? Black Kite ( talk) 12:40, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi all,
I would like to keep an eye out on my filters/other anti-abuse filters but since they're set on private, I cannot see them on my alternate account. Could someone please add abusefilter to this account? Elockid (Alternate) ( Talk) 21:13, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Could some of you fine filter managers drop by Wikipedia:BN#Wikipedia:Changing_username.2FSimple and advise on the suitability of that proposal? Thanks. MBisanz talk 04:51, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Can someone give me a pointer as to how I could modify filter 526 to catch this?— Kww( talk) 00:10, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I'd like to know how frequently the edit filters prevent edits taking place. Do we have any stats? ( Wikipedia:Edit_filter/Performance doesn't seem to have been refreshed since 2009 so I've taken the liberty of declaring it historical). Ϣere SpielChequers 21:53, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
I would have expected someone to have posted this by now, but User:Hoo man has submitted a changeset that would fundamentally change the way logging works, there's a non-technical explanation here. The specific change is gerrit:42501.
Also, if you're already not on the wikitech-ambassadors list, you should subscribe since these kinds of changes will be announced there. Legoktm ( talk) 02:31, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
I am admin and burocrat at Marathi language Wikipedia mr-wiki.Currentlly we are using "contains_any" parameter for filtering out required word .We are looking for effective suggssions for following (So we can have properly updated help pages)
Thanks and Regards
Mahitgar (
talk)
11:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
(added_lines rlike "\bतू\b")
. Let me know if that is what you want. Cheers!
Reaper Eternal (
talk)
13:53, 19 February 2013 (UTC)Appears to be stopping this editor from making any edits at all. Must be an FP, surely? Indeed, if you look at the filter log, there are at least two others on the first page that appear to be FPs as well. Black Kite ( talk) 13:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
With the advent of Wikidata the removal of interwiki links is now desirable instead of potentially abusive, so this tag should probably be depracated. Beeblebrox ( talk) 20:12, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
I'd prefer for us to properly plan this and just have a flag day where we removed all of them en masse. While the transition is piecemeal, their removal can still be improper if the central support isn't there for a given article. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) ( talk) 11:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi all! Will is be possible to add a new filter that stops people from adding categories to pages in the Wikipedia talk:Aricles for creation/... namespace? This is to prevent them adding categories to non-published pages. Thanks, Mdann52 ( talk) 11:04, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
bobrayner ( talk) 11:22, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Many false positives from this filter. Basically, appears to be stopping a lot of good-faith edits from non-confirmed editors where they're actually doing the right thing and adding sources. Am starting to get a little frustrated with opening reports here and seeing "58" a lot. Examples [27] [28] [29] [30]. Filter 225 seems to becoming problematic as well. Black Kite ( talk) 03:02, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
I try to understand how filters related to the Article Feedback work, before the extension is enabled on the French Wikipedia, where I am an abusefilter editor. I have seen that you have created specific filters, for instance Special:AbuseFilter/502 (" Feedback: Extremely long words"). But I can't see anything that test the action in the code of this filter (such as action == "feedback"). So how is it possible that this filter does not match normal contributions in articles?
Orlodrim ( talk) 21:37, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
The current filter parameters in one of mr-wiki filter is some thing like following
article_namespace >= 0 &
new_size >= 2 &
!article_articleid = 64452 & (This is article related to Rabies)
!contains_any(added_lines,"abc","efg")&
contains_any(added_lines,"synonymOfWordDog")
On mr-wiki one of the edit filter, filters synonym of word 'Dog' to avoid usage of the word for abuse.Since the synonym of word 'Dog' was giving false positive on article related to "Rabies" in main name space.So we added parameter "! article_articleid = 64452 &" to avoid false positive on this article.But in recent abuse attack we noticed that rather than filter skipping the article related to "Rabies"; filter is skipping the synonym of word 'Dog'. Please do suggest an improvement.
Rgds
Mahitgar ( talk) 15:35, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi,User:Mattj2 , Thanks for your reply.
1) The main problem we sought solution was at third line (!article_articleid) . At local wiki we found reliable work around for the problem.But we still are interested in understanding exactly how exactly this syntax works .As such thought to be an error can be used constructively in some other code.But I was not sure how much resources it consumes so was waiting for some technical discussion to take place.
2)a First Line (article_namespace >= 0) On our local wiki usually people do understand importance/value of wiki to their mother tougne so as such we have hardly any deliberate vandalism in main namespace (other than few trial and error edits). We have left it open in main space too , because it has max edits(since we do not have enough edits in our language at other namespaces) and helps to study and contain false positives.
2)b Since info is from private filter it won't be wise to mention name spaces we exempt.At the same time discussion/suggessions on various syntax options for inclusion or avoiding namespace are welcome ,since it will help updating help pages.
Thanks and Regards Mahitgar ( talk) 13:54, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
article_articleid == 64452
!(article_articleid == 64452)
Hello and thanks once again for all your effort User:Mattj2.All your effort helps us to confirm that we are on right track .Besides with such info I keep bulding up help pages so your effort has been very valuable.
About :article_articleid == 64452 My obsrvation has been it calls in all the words from an article ,actually I need to confirm this again by testing it once more, that I will do eventually.If it comes true it can make certain different work easier, but certainly would need more testing.
Thanks and regards
Mahitgar ( talk) 12:13, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
I patrol new pages, mostly through tags, and have noticed that this tag hasn't been applied to an article for quite some time. It think it's been years since I've seen it applied. I'm guessing the filter has an issue as I'm sure there have been plenty of articles created with no mention of the title. I'm not sure that this is the best place to report an issue but this was the best place I could find. Is there anything I can do to help check these filters (96 and 238) to see if there's an issue that leaves this page perpetually blank? OlYeller21 Talktome 02:54, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Not sure which filter this is, but it probably needs a quick tweak because this got through it? Black Kite ( talk) 13:39, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
edit_delta < -5000
added_lines >= 5000 || removed_lines >= 5000
- Mahitgar ( talk) 03:34, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
Depending on my experiance at our local wiki I have made some feature requests At bugzilla through following bugs
Thanks and Regards
Mahitgar ( talk) 05:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
He is restricted from "any category-related edits outside of mainspace". Could a filter be constructed to prevent him from doing that? As I see it, he sometimes "forgets" his restriction, and would unlikely to try to work around it. But I'm not sure how to write the filter, even there would be agreement that it is a good thing. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:57, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
No, thank you. Creating edit filters to enforce topic bans would entail an unnecessary drain on server resources, increasing edit processing times and overflowing the condition limit. If Alan Liefting would like a software warning about edits that potentially violate his topic ban, he can add them to his local javascript page.
Reaper Eternal (
talk)
00:58, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
@ User:King of Hearts , Please can you provide an example of "timestamp < someunixtimevalue" to use in such filters. I suppose this parameter is used to assign a time limit to auto lapse is kinda filters you are discussing here.It seems related filter on en wiki are private and I dont have access . If you provide me with an example we can save our time in trial and error at local wiki. Regrds
Mahitgar ( talk) 15:19, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Where's the list? I'm trying to help a guy out at Teahouse who apparently triggered edit filter #139. What the heck is that?
>>Is there a list?<<
I just find the function (or whatever) rlike
for checking regex patterns. It seems to attempt to match the entire string only, not a part of the string. So how would one match just a part of a string with regex? The dot (.
) doesn't seem to represent an arbitrary character either ('a.' rlike 'as'
yields False
), like the article on
Perl Compatible Regular Expressions seems to indicate. Is there any documentation available for the regex used in this extension? --
Njardarlogar (
talk)
13:29, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
'as' rlike 'a.'
instead. --
zzuuzz
(talk)
19:31, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
According to mw:Extension:AbuseFilter/RulesFormat
action='upload'
and
action='delete'
are supposed to be valid actions.But I could not succeed through the tests. Any clues,Please ?
Mahitgar ( talk) 15:44, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello all; As a non-privileged user (who is not likely to become an abusefilter-manager) I was wondering if one of the more experienced managers could help me understand how to get engaged in the process. I'm currently wetting my feet with the syntax at test.Wikipedia, but want to eventually bring those skills where they matter (i.e, here). Fortunately for the project, the system as it stands is designed not to break things, but unfortunately for a newbie, all the contentious edits that do trigger a filter as vandalism, are often marked as private where I cannot interact with them. I'm looking for a way more than "Chat with us on the talk page mate!" to contribute, but am not requesting the flag. Look forward to hearing from you! Cheers! - TIM( Contact)/( Contribs) 11:51, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
I think it would be useful to create a temporary filter to view the edits done by Visual editor. Particularly the ones done by new accounts. There are still some significant problems with it and if they release it to the 50% of new accounts today as they have been advertising it coudl cause a spike in the errors introduced to articles and formatting problems. Kumioko ( talk) 16:59, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Would it be possible to exempt bots from Filter 167. We are having problems with archiving bots not being able to create new archives. Mdann52 ( talk) 08:37, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
I've been getting weird results with count, rcount and regex. I'll show tests below against this blocked edit - which is an edit containing the letter e multiple times.
Part 1: rcount can't count?
Count and rcount (in many examples that I've tested) evaluate to exactly 1 if there is a match, and to minus infinity (or at least a large negative number) if there is no match.
E.g. I test the simple filter:
rcount("e" in added_lines) == 1
This reports "The filter matched this change", when I expect it to not match. The count should be much higher than 1. ">1" or any other comparison I've tried fails to match.
Now I test for a string which is not in the added lines:
rcount("this is a test string blah blah blah" in added_lines) == 1
That matches, but it shouldn't. "0" or any other comparison I tried fails to match.
Also weird:
rcount("e" in "foo")
...which matches, but shouldn't.
count gives similar results when I've tried it.
Part 2: regex:
Now to try regex for this string which is not found in added lines, testing against the same edit... at first it works correctly:
added_lines regex "this is a test string blah blah blah"
"The filter did not match this change." Working correctly, no problem.
Using ! for NOT:
!added_lines regex "this is a test string blah blah blah"
"The filter matched this change." Again, working correctly.
Then it gets weird
added_lines regex "this is a test string blah blah blah" == 0
This reports "The filter did not match this change.". Problem! I expect the first part of the expression to be false, and therefore the whole expression should match.
added_lines regex "this is a test string blah blah blah" < -10000000000000000000000000000000000000
This reports "The filter matched this change". False is somehow given a large negative number.
Can anyone help explain this to me? I've written a filter based on rcount, and on the idea that false is 0 and true is 1 - it's not working, and I came across these anomalies while trying to debug it. -- Chriswaterguy talk 08:39, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
rcount("e" in added_lines)
isn't giving the appropriate arguments to rcount. Rcount takes two arguments: the regex and the string with which to compare the regex. (Usage: rcount(string regex, string haystack).)("asdasdasdasdasdffff" rlike "asdd") = 0
is not the same as ("asdasdasdasdasdffff" rlike "asdd") = false
. The first expression, rlike, evaluates to 'false' in this case, and then a compare is done between 'false' and '0', which evaluates to 'false'.In the uppermost row of Special:AbuseFilter:
“ | Of the last 5,440 actions, 24 (0.44%) have reached the condition limit of 1,000, and 99 (1.82%) have matched one of the filters currently enabled. | ” |
"!("confirmed" in user_groups)
will eliminate the need to run the rest of the filter on any established users. With regards to edits matching the filter and not being caught, that is likely because those actions reached the condition limit before reaching the filter that they matched. When an action takes 1000 conditions, it stops being processed by the edit filter.
Reaper Eternal (
talk)
10:32, 6 June 2013 (UTC)乌拉跨氪 ( talk) 11:59, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
This is zhwiki filter #21:
action == "edit" & !("autoconfirmed" in user_groups) & !("bot" in user_groups) & (article_namespace == 6) & !(user_name in article_recent_contributors) & (removed_lines rlike "\{\{.*\}\}") & !(removed_lines in added_lines)
Firstly, I would remove the !("bot" in user_groups)
check, since your bot accounts are probably going to be autoconfirmed due to mass editing. I'd also move the namespace check to the front, since that will filter out far more edits than the action == "edit"
check. I can't help too much since I can't read Chinese and thus have no clue what this filter is supposed to be doing. This leaves us with the slightly more optimized filter:
(article_namespace == 6) & !("confirmed" in user_groups) & (action == "edit") & !(user_name in article_recent_contributors) & (removed_lines rlike "\{\{.*\}\}") & !(removed_lines in added_lines)
Reaper Eternal ( talk) 14:35, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi folks,
How can I create a template that lists contributions by a specific user just on abuse filters?
We use hu:Template:Adminlista-elem to list special admin activities, such as log pages and editing MediaWiki namespace. I want to enhance it with abuse filter modifications. Bináris ( talk) 07:43, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
In case people haven't heard, VisualEditor does not play well with the edit filter. At present any edit done with VE that should trigger either warn or disallow will result in a fatal error: "Error: Hit AbuseFilter: [name of triggered filter]". This means that warn and disallow are functionally the same for VE right now. In addition, the custom error messages designed for the edit filter will not be shown when editing with VE. Dragons flight ( talk) 05:56, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm sad to see that there is not much traffic on this talk page... lack of camaraderie amongst filter managers, perhaps? :( Anyway, does anyone have any clue what to make of the filter 527 log? I doubt anyone is patrolling it, because it is fairly meaningless. Does anyone have any idea how the createaccount filters work? — This, that and the other (talk) 09:50, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello,
There are currently many false positives for filter that trigger on large deletions (I just opened a bug report: bugzilla:52062).
For instance [34] [35] [36] [37] on filter 30 (which has more than 500 detections today, while the number of detections / day is usually around 100).
Until this is fixed, you might want to disable warnings for this filter, and similar filters if you have some.
Kind regards,
Orlodrim ( talk) 22:18, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Do we have a filter that looks for [1],[2],etc, which indicates refs were pasted from one wikipedia page to another. If not, I'll propose one in the normal fashion - im guessing it might be a perf problem. John Vandenberg ( chat) 15:00, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
In a discussion about a similar filter on Portuguese Wikipedia, we noticed your filter which detects "text added after categories and interwiki" doesn't have any result since february 2013 (we copied the English version and it stopped detecting edits until we reverted to our old version). Helder 19:52, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Hey, all, during NPP, I came across this article. It's obviously spam, so I nominated it for deletion under G11. At nearly the same time, the author added categories to the article with VE. For some reason, their edit tripped the "removing speedy deletion tags" edit filter, even though it didn't remove a speedy deletion tag, and I can't see any obvious reason (though I'm not a regex expert, a regexpert if you will) why it would have tripped the filter. I see from the above that VE is causing some issues with the edit filter; is causing false positives like this a known issue? Writ Keeper (WK to move) ⚇ ♔ 14:30, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Why is this filter hidden? If it only throttles pagemoves, it shouldn't be hidden, so I'll presume it's because it contains something like HAGGER specifics...? Ginsuloft ( talk) 23:59, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Special:AbuseFilter/559. Would someone mind cooking one up? I'll get around to it eventually if no one volunteers. But we are getting lots of "false" positive reports about this one, so clearly the newbies have no clue why this is not allowed, and who could expect them to. Someguy1221 ( talk) 11:11, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi
This is imformal request for comment.
For throttlling in edit filters, all types of actions are considered and I suppose even preview actions are considered.
Is getting preview actions counted in total actions really helpfull for edit filters? Even if we keep throttle above 4 or even 6 to 8,can some Edit filters give falls positives, even to genuine users, only because they previewed their edit several times ?
Mahitgar (
talk)
03:33, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
On mr-wiki one of particular edit filter has got relevant parameters for this discussion; A) action == "edit" and B) Number of actions to allow: = 4 actions . In atleast two instance of one user have been filtered in first edit itself,This particular user does lot of spell checking/correction but is not tech savy and probably due to his preview actions are getting counted as action and first attempt to save itself is getting throttled, and two such edit instances of this particular editor have given falls positive.
What happens if some user watches preview multiple times (Say more than 4 times in above case) before his first attempt to submit edit with save action ? Whether filter throttles such submission or not is the question I want to understand.
So before filing any bug I want to confirm if there is really a problem or not.
Rgds Mahitgar ( talk) 08:24, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
Among syntax options available for edit filter there is one option called "new_pst" given discription is :" New page wikitext,pre-save transformed . My question is how do we put this syntax to use ? edit filter example if it has been used already ?
Mahitgar ( talk) 05:41, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, its nice of you.
Mahitgar ( talk) 03:16, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Is there a way to calculate the maximum or minimum of two terms? I checked mw:Extension:AbuseFilter/Rules_format and couldn't find it. Thanks -- Chriswaterguy talk 23:29, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
I know which user this is meant to be preventing, but is this an FP? If so, is the filter too broad? Black Kite ( talk) 11:34, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
This edit prompted me with a message saying "Your edit includes new external links." and made me enter a CAPTCHA before I could save it. Looking at the diff, it's easy to see that is not the case. I went to report a false positive, but could not find this entry for my IP or the article in the Edit Filter log? Are some logs hidden? 96.236.155.40 ( talk) 01:59, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Looking at this filter log, an anonymous user is attempting to revert the addition of a wall of soapboxing from a talk page. Special:AbuseFilter/420 is supposed to throttle large anonymous deletions from talk pages at a rate of 1 per hour, but this user got disallowed on his first attempt. I wonder if this has something to do with the number of different filters to all call on him at the same time, but I don't have any real idea. Does anyone know what's going on? Someguy1221 ( talk) 21:24, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Filter 602 is not tagging with discretionary sanctions alert
as directed to do. However, as you see after using its conditions at
Special:AbuseFilter/test and my username under 'Changes by user', the filter is correctly figured. Does anyone know why the filter is not logging and tagging?
AGK
[•]
00:32, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
FWIW, this appears to be a false positive. Yaris678 ( talk) 18:10, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
I just glance at my filter log out of passing curiosity, and I wondered how this edit and two subsequent edits tripped filter 554 "top100 blog charts". The topic seems about as far removed from the sorts of articles where this filter might catch legitimate results as it's possible to get. Also, is a filter that's had >12,000 hits (including bots and other edits that clearly aren't what it's aimed at) since last May actually doing anything useful? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:08, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I'm a sysop on zhwiki, and we have a lot of filters copied from here over time. However I've found that vandals often find ways to bypass our filters and we have to improvise, but the enwiki equivalent had been set to private. So I request this permission for viewing purpose only, I don't intend to edit anything here. Thanks. Jimmy Xu ( talk) 09:16, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
This filter (Repeated attempts to vandalize) is getting hit a lot by new users trying The Wikipedia Adventure. See here for instance. I've not investigated fully, but I don't think this is vandalism, and may be deterring new users? — SMALL JIM 17:49, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello there! I'm a Veteran Editor quite active in recent patrolling and antivandalism on Wikipedia. This request for permission is based on the usefulness access to the edit filter management group will have for me in my duties. I currently have the permissions of rollbacker, reviewer and autopatrolled and can be trusted not to abuse the tools. Thanks in advance. — This lousy T-shirt — ( talk) 15:00, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
When patrolling, I've found that new users sometimes add their signatures in articles. I have no idea why, but it happens fairly often. So I decided to add a filter that would prompt a friendly warning, that is, assuming you can make custom warnings?
It's been running in idle for almost 12 hours, with five hits, four of them are correct. The other was with
this edit and not the
previous edit which was the one that actually had the signature in it. I'm using added_lines
to inspect the change. edit_diff
didn't seem to be the right one, and edit_diff_pst
(which I could use to match ~~~~) seemed to cause the query to time out. I can't figure out why... anyone know what I'm doing wrong? Thanks —
MusikAnimal
talk
14:39, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello there, MusikAnimal. I am an administrator on Swedish Wikipedia, where I work on the edit filters. Our equivalent of this filter is working perfectly, and it just so happens that it's a filter I've been working on. I can see that you had to delete filter 613, so I'd like to share ours and explain how it works.
(article_namespace %2 == 0) & !(article_namespace == 4) & !("bot" in user_groups) & ("~~~" in added_lines) & !(old_wikitext rlike "~~~") & !(added_lines irlike "<nowiki>~+<\/nowiki>|{{(information\skommer|(bearbetning\s|arbete\s)?på(går|börjad)|(pågående|ständiga)\suppdateringar)") & !(article_prefixedtext rlike "Användare:.+\/") & !( "Användare:" + user_name == article_prefixedtext)
The first line tells the filter to divide the namespace index with two, and if the result is zero, it should continue. An exception is made for ns-4 (the Wikipedia namespace).
The second line excludes bots (I'm not actually sure this is needed thanks to line six, but is doesn't hurt either).
The third line checks if three tildes are added.
The fourth line makes an exception if three tildes are present in the old wikitext.
The fifth line makes an exception if one or more tildes are added within nowiki tags, or
a certain template (or any of its redirects) is added telling others that the page is under construction (the template uses tildes as parameters to show others who is editing the article and when the template was added). If you don't have any such templates on this project, simply leave out |{{(information\skommer|(bearbetning\s|arbete\s)?på(går|börjad)|(pågående|ständiga)\suppdateringar).
The sixth line makes an exception to subpages in the user namespace. You'll want to change Användare to User.
The seventh line makes an exception when a user signs on his or her own user page. Again, you'll want to change Användare to User.
So, assuming you don't have any templates that uses tildes as parameters, a working filter on this project would be:
(article_namespace %2 == 0) & !(article_namespace == 4) & !("bot" in user_groups) & ("~~~" in added_lines) & !(old_wikitext rlike "~~~") & !(added_lines irlike "<nowiki>~+<\/nowiki>") & !(article_prefixedtext rlike "User:.+\/") & !( "User:" + user_name == article_prefixedtext)
I should probably mention that you can't test this filter using the tools, because of how the tildes transform upon saving, but it does work live.
Finally, regarding the warnings you asked about: Yes, as an administrator you can edit and create new warnings and tags for the edit filter. You can see a list of warning messages here and a list of tags here. Nirmos ( talk) 04:46, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
I've noticed that edits never seem to have more than one tag that is generated by an edit filter. For instance, I've seen lots of page-blanking edits that are tagged with possible vandalism even though blanking would also normally apply but does not. For another example, have a look at the history of Sauli Niinistö: many of the recent edits were correctly tagged as possible BLP issue or vandalism. The vandal also reverted ClueBot NG several times, so the tag reverting anti-vandal bot should also have applied. But for some reason, it did not.
So I'm wondering: are tags generated by edit filters mutually exclusive? If so, is this by design? -- Ixfd64 ( talk) 18:29, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi all,
There is consensus developing over at Wikipedia talk:AFC#Edit filter for an edit filter to be used to help enforce use of the script to only those who meet the criteria which has been agreed on per several RfC's, and is listed here. This follows several recent occerances of SPA's using the script to mass-move pages to cause disruption. Ideally, the filter should pick up edits tagged with the string "afch" in the edit summary (in either lower or upper case), as it is added automatically by the use of the script. It may also be worth limiting this to draft space only, to limit any false positives. If you would like any more information, please let me know. -- Mdann 52 talk to me! 16:37, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
There seems to be some conflation here, and I'm sorry I didn't notice it earlier. The discussion here apparently refers to a much broader edit filter, the discussion that is linked at WT:AFC refers to an edit filter protecting only the AfC qualified reviewer list. A single URL. This distinction may or may not be important, but it was my view that FP on the participant list was an unnecessary impediment to getting more reviewers working at AfC, and I personally believe that the lack of timely reviews there is a situation which significantly degrading our ability to attract new editors--people who go to AfC now often have to wait over a month for a review. This is just nuts, and full protecting the participant list would make it worse. -- j⚛e decker talk 18:14, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
:(3x edit coflict) OK, so lets reform here---you want an edit filter that prevents ONE PAGE from being editing unless the username is on a list? How often is this page editing? Why can't protection and requests to change be utilized (much like the AWB checklist)? — xaosflux Talk 18:43, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
article_articleid == 12438036 & user_editcount < 500 & user_age < 7776000
Hello, I'm a sysop on hiwiki, which is suffering with a shortage of active editors and hence needs stricter edit filters to keep vandalism in check. Compared to enwiki, the number of such filters on hiwiki is very small. I am looking to import a few filters, some of which have been set to private here. I request this permission for viewing the conditions and content of the filters. I don't intend to make any edits on enwiki. Thank You! Shubhamkanodia ( talk)
Is it possible to request that an overly restrictive filter be seriously looked at? — 174.141.182.82 ( talk) 16:14, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello all,
I requested an edit filter at the end of may without any response yet. Is there anything I could do to improve the chances of a response? Thanks for any comments, -- Null Drei Null talk 16:16, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
I think we need a more specialized warnong for this filter - I've seen several false positive reports which seem to object to these edits being described as "unconstructive", especially when it's only a small piece of an otherwise plausable edit. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
I wonder if there's a way I could prevent one filter to show up for me (on fiwiki). I don't like to see those warning texts when saving pages. The edit filter is about possible forgotten signature ( this one). -- Stryn ( talk) 17:39, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Hmm, what is this edit filter do? I don't know what happen that users edit on talk pages may identify as an unconstructive edit that was blocked by an automatic edit filter? That should work on them! -- Allen talk 01:36, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi! I have some questions concerning the condition limit in the edit filter. The condition limit is a restriction concerning how much and complex filter code that is allowed to be executed before the edit filter stops executing filter code for that edit, i.e. it is not a time limit. I guess that the condition limit has been the same since the edit filter was introduced 5 ½ years ago. During this period, the hardware that the edit filter is running on has reasonably at least doubled its speed (only a guess). If that is the case, we now allow the filter code to run during at most approximately half the time or even less for each edit compared to when the edit filter was introduced. Couldn't it be possible to increase the condition limit from the current value 1000 for this reason? Another question: Is it possible for each language to decide its own condition limit? (I am working with the Swedish edit filter, not the English one.) A final question: It seems like a project is going on with the purpose to replace the condition limit with a time limit. If that is the case, when is that work expected to be finished? Svensson1 ( talk) 20:55, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi
I had to revdel this edit a couple of days ago. I then went to check the edit filter for this user and noticed that none of the filters had picked up on anything. Surely one of the filters should have picked up on this vandalism? 5 albert square ( talk) 19:37, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm working on a 'mild block' proposal that is to classic block what pending changes protection is to classic protection. I'm posting here because it is suggested that the edit filter be granted the ability to pending changes block (as well as users in a new usergroup, and some anti-vandalism bots). My draft is at User:Cenarium/PCB and I welcome any input before going ahead with the proposal. If there are any technically minded users, I'd particularly appreciate feedback on the suggested implementation. Cenarium ( talk) 22:08, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Is there a way for a filter to take an action only after an account or IP triggers the criteria on multiple edit attempts? (Not necessarily on the same pagename, as spammers typically try a different pagename each time.)
E.g. a spammer makes 30 attempts to create a spam page and are prevented each time, but on the 31st attempt they are successful. Instead, is there a way to block them after the nth attempt? (E.g. on the 15th attempt.)
This is for a non-Wikipedia wiki. Maybe the answer is that we need some other kind of bot in addition to our AbuseFilter? Many thanks. -- Chriswaterguy talk 04:14, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I have been fighting against LTA named 대우건설 ( Report about this user on meta and enwiki report) globally since Jan 2014. Today, I requested MusikAnimal to create new filter to prevent his socking patterns (I believe, nobody with Korean knowledge would speak "GO AWAY FUCKING MAN" on enwiki except vandals) and he created Special:Abusefilter/648 (private). I would like to see the abuselog of this filter and amend new patterns as needed. I am sysop on Korean Wikipedia, Commons, Meta-wiki, Wikidata, and two small wikis, and have touched few abusefilters. — Revi 13:10, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
I've created a discussion on tagging these edits, and showing the pages on Special:NewPages and Special:NewPagesFeed; please contribute here: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Proposed_technical_change:_show_pages_expanded_from_redirects_on_Special:NewPages_and_Special:NewPagesFeed. — Swpb talk 21:21, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I am working with the Swedish edit filter and I have investigated how the edit filter works when several warnings are displayed simultaneously. It seems to work well when two filters show a warning and tag the edit. One warning appears below the other. But when three or four warnings shall be shown it only works sometimes. It seems to depend on in which order the things in the article that the filters react on are placed. Sometimes all the three or four warnings are shown simultaneously and the edit is correct tagged. But sometimes only two warnings are shown and only two tags are added to the edit despite it should be more. This is not so good since it can be a very important filter, maybe the most important filter, which warning not is shown and which tag not is added to the edit. Svensson1 ( talk) 15:26, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Forgive me if this is written somewhere obvious, I couldn't find it, but are admins ok to give themselves the edit filter user right without formal request? Sam Walton ( talk) 11:51, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I've just tried to re-enable Special:AbuseFilter/425, but can't: I get the error "You cannot edit this filter, because it contains one or more restricted actions. Please ask a user with permission to add restricted actions to make the change for you." Which is surprising, because I'm an admin on enwiki, and also have the "edit filter manager" permission set (I've just re-checked this, just to make sure). Can anyone please let me know what I should be doing to be able to edit edit filters again? -- The Anome ( talk) 23:25, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Hey, can someone with previous experience or the ability to look through the edit filters help me figure out why
WikiLove messages
are being tagged as possible vandalism? — {{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
17:36, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
The test page says that it checks the past 100 edits but if you enter a user to test against it doesn't seem to follow an obvious constraint, other than not testing against edits from some time ago. What's the length of this time and why is there a limit? i.e. Why can't I check the past 100 edits made by a user or IP up to any time ago? Sam Walton ( talk) 16:04, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
One of the conditions of this filter is user_editcount < 15
, and yet the filter caught
this edit, by an admin with closer to 150,000 edits than 15. In fact, as far as I can tell, the only condition that was met was the use of "fuck you" in the edit summary. Could somebody more competent than me look into this? Thanks,
HJ Mitchell |
Penny for your thoughts?
16:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
As mentioned here and here a few of us are confused about how the condition limit works. Could we get some input either at MediaWiki or here on what the condition limit actually refers to and whether we're exceeding some set limit? As I say at MusikAnimal's talk page, it seems some filters are failing to flag edits which should have been flagged per the test interface. Sam Walton ( talk) 22:15, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Glad we're getting somewhere with this! @ Samwalton9: Special:AbuseFilter/613 is a good-faith filter. This happens by accident so many times I decided to make a filter to inform the user that ~~~~ was in the wikitext, and to ensure they wanted to save it (often the rest of the edit is fully constructive). On the other hand, the more restrictive Special:AbuseFilter/623 I believe was aimed at a sockpuppet, but after seeing how well it performed in disallowing vandalism in general, with coincidentally very low false positives, it was just left as is. You may be able to still combine it with some other general vandalism filter, though.
About the "filters for deletion"... note also that it may require SPI-related discussions to take place, which at least for some we'd would need to be careful not to convey details about the filters' implementation.
I think the technical aspects about the condition limit issue is still unclear. That archived discussion was five years ago, with all the upgraded machinery we surely can handle a bigger payload and be able increase that condition limit if even a tad. I'd like to get WMF clarification on this, I've tried at mw:Extension_talk:AbuseFilter#Condition_limit and repeatedly on #wikimedia-tech connect. Perhaps we should open a phab report? — MusikAnimal talk 20:31, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
The condition limiter is a somewhat ad hoc tool for preventing performance problems. In my personal opinion it should be removed and replaced with a total runtime limit. To the extent that you want to worry about performance, execution times are generally better measure to be thinking about. Also, the per filter reporting of condition numbers is completely wonky / broken and should not be considered accurate in any way. So don't necessarily rely on those numbers when identifying problems. (Unfortunately, the per filter time numbers are also somewhat broken.)
That said, the condition limiter is the current thing that we use, so it is worthwhile to understand it. The condition limit is (more or less) tracking the number of boolean operands + number of function calls + number of function parameters + the number of parenthetical conditions entered. However, it is also smart enough to bypass functions and parenthetical groups if the value doesn't matter. For example, in the expression A & B, the details of B are only evaluated is A is true. For that reason it is beneficial to performance to put simple limiting conditions, e.g. checks for article namespace, in front of more complex expressions. Also, parentheses are usually your friend even though entering them can count against you. Lastly, I should note that function calls are cached, so they only add to the condition count the first time a specific function result is asked for.
For a practical example, consider filter 59:
article_namespace == 6 & !("autoconfirmed" in user_groups) & !(user_name in article_recent_contributors) & rcount ("\{\{.*\}\}", removed_lines) > rcount ("\{\{.*\}\}", added_lines)
This can be simplified as:
Let's consider the branching chart:
So, that filter runs from 4 conditions if the first operation is false to 12 conditions if every operation must be evaluated.
Now consider an alternative construction with explicit parentheses for groups and removing excess parentheses around the "in" operations:
article_namespace == 6 & ( ! "autoconfirmed" in user_groups & ( ! user_name in article_recent_contributors & rcount ("\{\{.*\}\}", removed_lines) > rcount ("\{\{.*\}\}", added_lines) ) )
This can be simplified as:
Let's consider the branching chart:
So, that filter runs from 2 conditions if the first operation is false to 12 conditions if every operation must be evaluated. If the initial condition is rarely true, as article_namespace == 6 probably is, then the modified filter will consume only two conditions in most runs, compared to 4 conditions in the example without explicit parentheses. Stacking easy to evaluate but hard to match conditions at the front of a filter will generally improve run times and reduce condition usage. In most cases, the use of explicit parentheses also helps the edit filter parser more efficiently determine branching and also reduce both condition counts and runtimes. Dragons flight ( talk) 04:54, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
I spent a chunk of time reformatting a number of the active filters to add explicit parentheses and to place exclusionary criteria at the front. Right now 0.15% of actions are exceeding the condition limit, down from about 10% when I started. Hopefully I didn't introduce any errors in the process. Dragons flight ( talk) 12:56, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
There seems to be an issue where a revised filter can show very high average conditions (600+) despite being simple, and having a run time of c. 0.3 ms. Coming back later the average conditions reduce to something sensible like 2. Is this a known issue? All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough, 21:56, 17 February 2015 (UTC).
Do we have an accurate definition of what specials this removes? All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough, 23:01, 18 February 2015 (UTC).
preg_replace( '/[^\p{L}\p{N}]/u', '', $s );
where $s
is the initial string. I believe that translates to "remove everything that isn't either a letter or a number" as evaluated by PHP's unicode compliant definition of what are letters and numbers.
Dragons flight (
talk)
23:12, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Feel like these edits [39] (admin viewable only) could be used to add to Filter 58, bit surprised they weren't caught already-- Jac16888 Talk 16:26, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Those two checks are probably the two most used by the filters. Which should come first ? In the running filters I've checked, the autoconfirmed check seems to come first a bit more often than the mainspace check but there's no clear winner. If we've got enough information and experience to make a performance determination, then the conditions should be in that same order for all filters. I've also noticed that filters sometimes check for "confirmed", and sometimes for "autoconfirmed". Since we only get very few edits by users in the confirmed usergroup, it should come down to whether checking for "autoconfirmed" (an exact match) is faster than checking for "confirmed". Cenarium ( talk) 06:51, 25 February 2015 (UTC)