Talk:Global AbuseFilter

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

Special:AbuseFilter/289 false positive on bgwiki[edit]

bg:Special:AbuseLog/155780 seems a false positive. As much as I try, it's hard for me to imagine how this can be even remotely a "telephone support spam". The filter isn't public, so I can't help with debugging. Could we please do something about it?
— Luchesar • T/C 08:18, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Iliev: Yes. thanks for your note, already fixed. I put a note to [[Stewards' noticeboard] that I had made an error and resolved it, it was broader than bgWP.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:03, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Billinghurst I think this filter has also been false-positive in Bengali Wikipedia at (7 August 11:35-11:53 UTC) MdsShakil (talk) 18:57, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Most likely, it was all global wikis, so if it was global-289 it is the filter. All fell into the same timetable, and fell into the same fix.  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:07, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

False positives on Breton Wikipedia[edit]

Hello, we are experiencing many false positives for filters 201 and 214, and a few of them for filters 238 and 265, on the Breton Wikipedia. What can be done about it? Does the whole wiki have to opt out of global filters, or can these filters be disabled for us? Huñvreüs (talk) 07:33, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Huñvreüs, can you link a couple of the false positives so I can investigate? GeneralNotability (talk) 16:36, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for investigating. Huñvreüs (talk) 17:12, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Huñvreüs only 214 should possibly impacting editors - are you seeing anything besides a log hit for 201,238, or 265? — xaosflux Talk 18:01, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Filter 214 updated for hit 466. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)
19:17, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@1234qwer1234qwer4: Thanks. If you could also get it not to flag hit 477, that would be great, since the user was really trying to add useful content. Huñvreüs (talk) 20:05, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh they do, and we certainly want to avoid FP's as much as possible. Some of these have large collections of strings that are generally disruptive. I asked because if there is not an impact, opting out locally would probably be worse for a small project that doesn't have many people to manage this locally. — xaosflux Talk 20:18, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Xaosflux: No actions were taken for filters 201, 238 and 267, but I still thought useful to report the false positives. I don’t know how you work, but I can only suppose that the middle/long term goal is to make these filters do something. Huñvreüs (talk) 20:05, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Another false positive for filter 214: Huñvreüs (talk) 20:12, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This one is already covered by my fix. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)
20:14, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@1234qwer1234qwer4: Is the filter fixed for hit 477? Huñvreüs (talk) 14:13, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Should be fixed now. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)
16:00, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Huñvreüs (talk) 16:16, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here are two new false positives for filter 201:

No actions taken but I am still reporting them in case you can improve the filter. Huñvreüs (talk) 19:36, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The "antivandalism" filter is meant to be pretty coarse from my experience, and I don't think there are any plans to add any actions to it (and if there were, not before careful review of recent hits which would reveal such false positives very easily), so reporting them here doesn't seem worthwhile to me. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)
19:39, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Noted, thanks. Huñvreüs (talk) 19:51, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]