Talk:Global AbuseFilter/Archives/2020

Special:AbuseFilter/72

Hello. It seems we have a false-positive here. Supertoff (talk) 16:25, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Gambling/casino spam

Hi,

Could you please either lower the bar for users that bypass the filter or disable it on frwiki?

There was a false positive where an experienced user was blocked from creating an article with Korean movie titles, and no detection otherwise on frwiki in the past month.

Orlodrim (talk) 11:30, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

@Orlodrim: Toned it down per your request.  — billinghurst sDrewth 15:04, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

policy details: rights and reasons

hi!
i seem to have the (technical) right to create and edit global filters. and i know the syntax. but i don't know, whether i may add/modify a filter rule. additionally i'm not 100% sure which types of spam/vandalism should be blocked via the filter.
for example: if a ANON-breaking website is placed at more than one wikis, should then this website be blocked by the filter? if yes: should a new rule be created or is there a rule already, where all ANON-breaking websites or webpages are (and should be) collected? -- seth (talk) 08:56, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

@Lustiger seth: global filters primarily deal with small/medium wikis. If the only thing going on is a bad domain insertion though, the global spam blacklist may be more effective - almost certainly over making a entirely new filter to just deal with one domain name. This page isn't heavily watched, so I'd bring this up at Talk:Small Wiki Monitoring Team / Stewards' noticeboard / Steward requests/Miscellaneous . — xaosflux ^Talk 12:02, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

@Lustiger seth: The right was retroactively GIVEN to meta admins, so you have the right to do so. While I think that part of that granting was due to me bugging for changes it was done for the group, not for a specific new group. With regard to your question, have a peek at special:AbuseFilter/69 and see if it fits there. There are a number of filters that do some of that, so see which may be closest to what you are looking to catch. Otherwise, if it is globally problematic it should be spam blacklist per another right we have. As I know that you can play with COIBOt and its monitoring, if unsure of the consequences then create that filter and monitor and seek an opinion.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:43, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

thanks for information!

it's not about "normal" bad domains. it's about websites that break WP:ANON und thus should not be published. the SBL is public to everybody. that's why at dewiki (for example) we use a private rule in the edit filter for such cases.

did i understand it correctly that there is no global edit filter that works at large wikis as well?

right now, global banning of those websites i'm talking about does not seem to be necessary, because afaik there is no global spamming with those websites. my question is more hypothetical, but i wanted to have an answer before such a case occurs. -- seth (talk) 21:23, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

@Lustiger seth: not 100% following you, we don't have any global policies called WP:ANON - are you referring to the dewiki w:de:WP:ANON? If there is a external site that is a large problem, keep in mind that global filters are not "global" - they only apply to small and medium projects, and larger projects that opt-in (most of the very large projects have not), notably they don't apply to the largest and most used projects at all. On dewiki, I see w:de:Special:AbuseFilter/267 that looks to be what you are referring to as an example, correct? Building out a global filter really should be done in discussion with the global sysops or stewards not as "only" a meta-wiki admin - especially if you intend to keep it private from the communities it would impact. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:33, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

• yes, I mean WP:ANON at dewiki and enwiki. I thought that all big wiki probably had similar rules concerning anonymity.
• thanks for confirming the non-global quality of the "global" attribute.
• yes, #267 is the right one.

so probably your already mentioned pages Stewards' noticeboard and Steward requests/Miscellaneous would be the place to go in such a case.

thanks for help, both of you. -- seth (talk) 19:20, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Where to discuss new (public) filters?

Hi folks, since I did list "managing global abuse filters" as one of my meta admin tasks...do we have a preferred place for discussing new (non-private) filters? If not, is this talk page sufficient, or would it be better to create a separate page for requested filters? GeneralNotability (talk) 01:03, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Depends on what we are trying to filter, those conversations have been aligned with respective groups (stewards, global sysops, Meta:RfH etc.). It is less typical for us to write that many global public filters as we are generally aimed at spammers and LTAs, they have not typically been public discussions (see comments sections, and attempted in titles). As AF are in the middle of a significant upgrade with changes it may be best to utilise existing processes for the moment. Poke your eyes at phab:project/view/4939/  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:24, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Billinghurst, ooh, nice! I wasn't aware that overhaul was in the works. I figured most would be private, just wanted to check if we did have any sort of process for the public ones. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:34, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

@GeneralNotability: if I want to make it known or get some feedback I would generally flag it at Stewards' noticeboard, as that will have the most eyes to Stewards/GS/GR. Generally the wider communities have come back to us via Meta:RfH for changes. <shrug>  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:52, 26 September 2020 (UTC)