Talk:Global AbuseFilter
This page is for discussions related to the Global AbuseFilter page. Please remember to:
|  |
False positives and improvements for filter 201[edit]
With the enabling of global abusefilters (almost) everywhere earlier today, I noticed a few false positives of filter 201 on itwiki (one, two, three). There's also another technical improvement that could be made to that filter. However, the filter is private and I've no idea what the right process is for suggesting changes, given I can't make my suggestions here in public. So my questions would be 1) how do I go about suggesting these changes, and 2) could this be clarified in the subject page? Thanks, Daimona Eaytoy (Talk) 17:54, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
- @Daimona Eaytoy: Ouch! Everywhere? Some of these filters have been specifically written knowing that we weren't hitting the mega wikis, esp. enWP. I think that we should have a standard pastability of some ready coded text that we can throw into filters that start to be a problem with false positives (shame we cannot nest) so we can quickly cut a wiki(s) out, and then do some rehabilitation.
Re where, good question, for someone like you, shouldn't you just have the rights to do it. That seems a better result IMHO. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:02, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
- @Billinghurst: Oh, sorry, I didn't mean to surprise anyone :-) See Requests for comment/Make global abuse filters opt-out; enwiki is one of the two wikis explicitly excluded from this. Just to clarify, the filter in question (and probably many others) are not causing any issues because they're log-only; still, I think it'd be good to avoid false positives if we can. As for doing that myself... My understanding is that only stewards and meta admins are allowed to modify global filters. In practice, this would mean making a RfA, and I'm almost inactive here. I would maybe apply if there were an AFM-like local group, but that is not the case... --Daimona Eaytoy (Talk) 00:10, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
- @Daimona Eaytoy: Abuse filter maintainers is separated from other rights specifically, and to me it is about the oversight for wikis/community where there is impact and people with competence address and resolve with ability to observe and think globally. Having people to fine tune should be okay, and it is always the community that guides us, and we who step through the scope of our involvement. The change IMO should be encouraging you to keep an eye on things, and as we cannot openly discuss things, then the consequence is that we need for you to have the ability to edit or comment in the space. [We are having to reverse engineer process.] — billinghurst sDrewth 02:20, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
- And I would support temporary / limited scope meta wiki adminship. This is a niche area and global AF was rolled out and designed at an earlier time, and until that catches up, the ability to edit should be the management process. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:29, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
- Floating right issues in front of stewards for their first comment special:diff/25269862 — billinghurst sDrewth 03:30, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
- AFM is for maintenance or requests by local communities though, I'm unsure if it applies to global filter edits [requested by local communities]. That said, I'll consider applying either for AFM or local adminship, as those seem to be the only options on the table. --Daimona Eaytoy (Talk) 16:24, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
- Floating right issues in front of stewards for their first comment special:diff/25269862 — billinghurst sDrewth 03:30, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
- And I would support temporary / limited scope meta wiki adminship. This is a niche area and global AF was rolled out and designed at an earlier time, and until that catches up, the ability to edit should be the management process. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:29, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
- @Daimona Eaytoy: Abuse filter maintainers is separated from other rights specifically, and to me it is about the oversight for wikis/community where there is impact and people with competence address and resolve with ability to observe and think globally. Having people to fine tune should be okay, and it is always the community that guides us, and we who step through the scope of our involvement. The change IMO should be encouraging you to keep an eye on things, and as we cannot openly discuss things, then the consequence is that we need for you to have the ability to edit or comment in the space. [We are having to reverse engineer process.] — billinghurst sDrewth 02:20, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
- @Billinghurst: Oh, sorry, I didn't mean to surprise anyone :-) See Requests for comment/Make global abuse filters opt-out; enwiki is one of the two wikis explicitly excluded from this. Just to clarify, the filter in question (and probably many others) are not causing any issues because they're log-only; still, I think it'd be good to avoid false positives if we can. As for doing that myself... My understanding is that only stewards and meta admins are allowed to modify global filters. In practice, this would mean making a RfA, and I'm almost inactive here. I would maybe apply if there were an AFM-like local group, but that is not the case... --Daimona Eaytoy (Talk) 00:10, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
- @Daimona Eaytoy I've disabled this filter for itwiki for now. Very large wiki's with robust filters and filter managers may want to opt-out of this. — xaosflux Talk 17:53, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Quick paste additions[edit]
Means to exclude things
- per wiki ... !(wiki_name == "frwiki")
- !equals_to_any (wiki_name, "wiki1", "wiki2", ...)
- per language ... !(wiki_language == "fr")