Talk:AbuseFilter

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Filter 37 at Meta[edit]

This filter, which prevent anons from editing user pages, incorrectly claims that the anon is blanking the page. 81.227.149.200 01:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

You're right, filter 37 is doing that, and it's not the filter's stated purpose. I've refined it to make it try and catch only blanking, instead of any edit by an anon to a page in the User: namespace. Courcelles 03:09, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Abuse[edit]

There's been some talk about it but not any action: AbuseFilter is greatly abused on some wikis, mainly because users don't know what they're doing, someone should check all wikis to note the worst cases and warn the local community, which will usually be completely unaware of what the very few users "knowing" the tool are doing. In the past I've reported some strange filters on zh.wiki which have been changed or disabled; hi:special:abusefilter is an example of outright abuse. Nemo 00:02, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Monitoring[edit]

The need has emerged in the past to list all filters created by SWMT members to avoid forgetting them; moreover, general usage of filters should be monitored to prevent abuse. I've opened a request to create a tool which will help with both; in the meanwhile, here's some stats: [1] [2]. Nemo 10:25, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Here some examples of big or small possible problems I found, and reported to the local wiki. Many filters are left alone and nobody looks at them because the users who created them are now inactive. See: zh-yue.wiki, tr.wiki, ar.wiki (lots of hits and most of them disallowing), fi.wiki (not sure), fa.wikt (nothing smells here, but still worth checking given the number of hits; same on fa.wiki), en.source (only inefficiency). A while ago I reported some weirdness to the zh.wiki community and they changed some things; the hit rate seems still high but I haven't checked the current situation, anyway it was very mild compared to what I see on other wikis. Nemo 15:23, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Mistake[edit]

I have made a mistake by not knowing that the move was set in userspace. To take away my confirmed status is irrational, and because the Abuse filter is not a person it makes mistakes. So I propose that the abuse filter give warnings first, and my confirmed status be regiven.--Seonookim (talk) 04:33, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

w:es:Especial:FiltroAntiAbusos out of control[edit]

The use of AbuseFilter on the Spanish Wikipedia is intolerable.[3] Stats speak on their own: «Of the last 8,649 actions, 2,872 (33.21%) have reached the condition limit of 1,000, and 906 (10.48%) have matched one of the filters currently enabled.» 10 %!! (The limit used to be 5, how comes this is even allowed by software? Ah, it's 5 % for each filter.)

Of the 6 most frequently hit filters, 4 are set to "disallow" and alone have been hit 1,648,171 times. This combines with a restricted autoconfirmed permission and some nasty bugs, producing an explosive mix. After seeing the stats there is no doubt that action is needed, but I didn't explore the false positives rate in detail; I just know that, with an unprivileged account, I was disallowed (or greatly hindered in doing) several legitimate edits today. Of course I left this for the local sysops to act on, I hope they will: [4].

Once again, in such cases the first thing is making filters public. A filter with almost a million hits must not be private; making filters private means it's almost impossible to review their mistakes, even the first link I gave above won't work for most people. --Nemo 16:02, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Filters 71 and 96 at de-WB[edit]

Hi, our local abuse filter 5 prevented the following edits: log 7517 (07:08, 9. Jan. 2016 CET) and log 7514 (22:12, 6. Jan. 2016 CET). On the other side, neither global filter 96 nor filter 71 alerted. Can someone explain why not? -- Juetho (talk) 09:35, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

They've different conditions. Why would you expect it to trigger the global filters? --Glaisher (talk) 17:20, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
log 7517 contains:
  • edit_delta: -2627
  • user_editcount: empty
  • added_links: 5 items rlike "cialis"
filter 71 contains edit_delta < -1000 & user_editcount <3 & added_links
I expect alarm because "empty" is less than 3. Filter 96 and log 7514 have similar reasons. Am I wrong to expect global alarm? -- Juetho (talk) 14:46, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Filter 96 didn't match because old_size didn't match. Now that I actually looked into the variables on that edit, it should have actually matched filter 71. But then I have observed it several times where some abuse filters are not triggered even if the conditions do actually match. I don't know why it happens but there are probably several reasons and it might be worthwhile for someone to investigate this bug. --Glaisher (talk) 17:24, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for checking. We'll wait for further matches. Face-smile.svg -- Juetho (talk) 10:00, 11 January 2016 (UTC)