Wikivoyage talk:Abuse filters

Purpose

Does this page serve a purpose not served by Special:AbuseFilter? LtPowers (talk) 14:58, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Filter 16

The tag for Filter 16 is "Ntsamr"; that doesn't seem very helpful. LtPowers (talk) 14:02, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

LtP: I have no experience with tags and the filters but i agree ntsamr is not understandable. jan (talk) 14:27, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Here is what it means: m:NTSAMR. PiRSquared17 (talk) 01:17, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this is one of the most sensitive filters, so we don't want to be too verbose with this. --Rschen7754 02:32, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Filter 11 (removal of deletion templates): False Positive

This edit inappropriately triggered the "removal of deletion templates" filter (Filter 11). Special:AbuseLog/365 indicates that the user removed all of the text on the page except for the added request, while the diff clearly shows that the user did no such thing. Bug? LtPowers (talk) 13:24, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

It happened again: . Same page! LtPowers (talk) 14:38, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Caused by a now-fixed APIEditBeforeSave bug - Bugzilla: 52077, which also affected a few ListingEditor edits. -- torty3 (talk) 04:31, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Filter 10 - changing tag

This filter checks for "Edits ending with feeling expression", which catches a few false positives and tags them with "possible vandalism". I think we should change the tag to "exclamation mark!", since WV does use more feeling expressions (!) compared to WP, and this more accurately describes the edits. -- torty3 (talk) 04:31, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

What does "feeling expression" really mean? Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:17, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Edits that end with ?! or !, which could mean excitable edits like , or but also stupid vandalism like . -- torty3 (talk) 05:27, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I see. Thanks. I'd agree with changing the tag. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:47, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

What if we restrict it to two or more closing exclamation marks? LtPowers (talk) 01:24, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Possibly, but there might be false negatives. And while enthusiastic, the flagged edits sometimes do sound a little touty. I looked through the rest and counted 12/45 (25%) edits that could be considered OK, though some got undone, maybe due to the tag. I think the term "possible vandalism" is discouraging in those cases. Could User:Rschen7754 weigh in as well? -- torty3 (talk) 01:23, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, this one could probably be safely changed without giving anything away. --Rschen7754 02:31, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

False negatives don't concern me nearly as much as false positives in this case. LtPowers (talk) 21:28, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

"Edits ending with !" is a fairly factual statement in a tag, so I don't think false positives are something to be concerned about here if we changed it. It's not like the filter is set to disallow or warn (or worse, block). --Rschen7754 02:56, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Telstra

What's the reason for this edit to be labeled? I'm missing the link with the Telstra vandal. Is it time to remove that warning anyway, since he/she seems to have left anyway? JuliasTravels (talk) 15:01, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Felling expression

What is that? It's in Abuse filter 10.

But I'm here because I wanted to check whether User:Shortround100 tripped any of the Telstra filters. How do I check that? Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:31, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

It's supposed to be "feeling". This list is waaaay out of date; you can see the current filters at Special:AbuseFilter. I would argue that perhaps Wikivoyage:Abuse filters ought to be a redirect; minimally it should link to it. Special:AbuseLog allows you to search for triggers by a specified user. Powers ^(talk) 20:29, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

It seems like a redirect is in order. But what is "feeling expression"? Emoticons? Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:33, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Seems to be two questions here. If you want to know which articles they tripped just click on the 'Hit Count' column --Andrewssi2 (talk) 03:34, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I see only IPs there. Do the abuse filters only work for IPs and not registered users, or do they show only IPs, regardless of whether a user is registered or not? Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:42, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Actually, Special:AbuseLog does show registered users, too. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:43, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Nevermind on my other question: I just read a previous thread above on what "feeling expression" means. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:09, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Pursuant to the previous thread, I've changed the tag applied to Filter 10 edits from "possible vandalism" to "edits with exclamations". And I've changed the name to highlight "enthusiastic punctuation" rather than "feeling expression". Powers ^(talk) 19:34, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Good. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:08, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Filter 45

Swept in from the pub

Admins, please look at abuse filter 45. Thanks. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:41, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Admins, your attention

Swept in from the pub

@SelfieCity, Ikan Kekek, ThunderingTyphoons!, Ground Zero, Andrewssi2: please take a look at the latest note in Special:AbuseFilter/45, where some important information has been shared. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:38, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Also @Mx. Granger, Traveler100: because Template:Ping can only handle five usernames at a time. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:38, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

also Gizza. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:43, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks for the heads-up. Ground Zero (talk) 03:49, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Right. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:30, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

• I've seen it. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 12:36, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Discussion continues, at least on my part. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 21:14, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Noted. Gizza ^(roam) 22:15, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

• @SelfieCity: new info. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:46, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I’ll take a look. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 04:23, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

• I would like admins to take a look at abuse filter for consent. (Scroll down to the bottom upon going to the abuse filter page.) --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 20:06, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Me again, now at #43. I think I've stumbled upon something, or someone, I should say. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 19:18, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

BTCentralPlus

Trying to make an update earlier and was blocked by BTCentralPlus Abuse filter (it was a quite valid update). Seemed to be IP based because change my IP address to run through an overseas (blocked when running through BT internet connection, not blocked through non-BT/non-UK) IP address and I could post the same update. BT is the largest retail ISP in the UK so whilst I have no idea what the filter is, it looks like it might be blocking over 9 million BT subscribers (though a %age of those will be EE and PlusNet which runs through BT but might be labelled differently). Either way BT have around 34% of the UK retail ISP market. Maybe look again at whatever the filter is? (BT use DHCP (few retail customers will pay extra for a static IP; so any IP blocks on BT IP ranges will be pretty ineffective) 199.249.230.22 14:42, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Admins, look at filter 22

Swept in from the pub

End of message. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:28, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Done. —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:50, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Look again please, all admins. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:51, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

If any stewards are reading, I'd love for you to participate, too. User:Bsadowski1, User:MarcoAurelio, User:MusikAnimal, User:Stryn, User:Tegel, User:Tks4Fish, User:Trijnstel and User:Vituzzu, if you see this and have a spare moment, please update us on how you're handling things and what thoughts you have for us. Thank you for the help you've given us here in the past. Let me know if you need more information on how to access the discussion in question. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:51, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

It's very disappointing to see only two other admins participating in the discussion at this time. Maybe that's because it's New Year's Eve. I'll probably ping all of you on the 2nd, though, if no-one else has checked in. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:32, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I have looked, but have no expertise in filters and so unfortunately can't help.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:34, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Same here. We need those who are technically adept to help, and that probably means a steward or some other technical whiz who's not a local admin, but perhaps we can discuss how to approach whom. I'd observe that the issue is Wikimedia-wide, though. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:49, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

We could ask for help at w:en:WP:VPT or m:Tech, but if someone offered to help, how could they see the relevant information? Could it be discussed in e-mail? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:03, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

IK: You got the technical help you needed, but the broader issue remains, if I understood the edits correctly. On the latter, I don't know enough. –LPfi (talk) 18:15, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, don't stewards have access to every part of this site without being given any special permissions by local admins? I don't think the basic information is secret, anyway. Vandalism is a Wikimedia-wide problem, and the issue is what is being done to prevent it at a higher level than just this site and how Wikimedia plans on dealing with it going forward. The specifics are best not to discuss in public, of course. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:29, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

This is a publicly viewable page: Wikivoyage:Abuse filters. My invitation is to stewards to visit filter 22 and participate in comments. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:33, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Both m:Stewards and m:Global sysops can see the filter, but there are many technical people who only hold local privileges and won't be able to. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:34, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm sure we'd be happy to give any such technical people who are trusted admins on sister sites admin tools here, too. I invite any to visit this thread. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:39, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I think you mean Special:AbuseFilter. Powers ^(talk) 02:08, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

I didn't know I could link that. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:38, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I'll take a look. You can even link to the specific filter: Special:AbuseFilter/22 which will not reveal its contents as it's marked as private (unathorized users will see a "thou shan't pass"-type message). Also, there's a abuse filter maintainer global group (currently just 3 users) that can also help you tweak the filters if you ask them for help. Best wishes for this new 2021. --MarcoAurelio (talk) 11:41, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Same to you, and thanks very much. I think I should contact them now. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:29, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Done. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:38, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ More technical help is needed now (of course). This will be an ongoing project. Whoever knows anything about editing filters, you are paged to Filter 22. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:26, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Abuse Filter 39

Swept in from the pub

Admins with technical knowledge (plus any global admins or stewards who might be reading), please have a look at Abuse Filter 39, to discuss how we might combat one vandal more effectively. To the rest of the readership: I think you can understand why we can't share technical details of things we're doing to try to improve your reading experience in this way. However if you have technical expertise, let us know. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:28, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Ikan Kekek - I'm not sure about the context in the linked discussion, but you need anything specific in this area I have enough technical knowledge to try and help. Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:11, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

@Ikan Kekek: I know something about abuse filters, depends on the context. I cannot edit the filter however. Leaderboard (talk) 21:14, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

The context is provided in my last edit of the comments about the filter at the link, and I would prefer not to go into specifics here if it's not essential to do so. Leaderboard, are you able to read the comments and reply to them at the link? Let us know if you need any more permissions. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:37, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

@Ikan Kekek: I can read the comments, but not reply to them at the filter 39 link. Leaderboard (talk) 21:41, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

What permissions would you need to be able to reply? Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:47, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Is there a way that we can give all global sysops the right to edit comments on abuse filter threads, and perhaps to edit the filters themselves? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:08, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't know if there is a technical solution, but perhaps we could have an "emergency temporary sysop" as a workaround. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:25, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I guess we'd need a steward to create such an option? It's not available to me. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:06, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@Ikan Kekek: I could look into seeing if I can get meta:abuse filter maintainer, or otherwise you need to get consensus and file a phabricator task for an equivalent local role. Also, I'm not a global sysop - global sysops can edit abuse filters (which I can't). Or I can simply run for sysop here if you want. Leaderboard (talk) 06:34, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:45, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Given that this is not the first time I've been asked to help with filters elsewhere, I've asked for the abuse filter maintainer right at Meta. Let's see how that goes first - I don't want to have to request sysop for such a narrow (and temporary) purpose if possible. Leaderboard (talk) 07:03, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

OK, great. Please keep us updated. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:24, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

For the original question, I now edited the filter. –LPfi (talk) 09:47, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:03, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@Ikan Kekek: Not looking positive (as of writing 3/3 support/oppose) - a former Wikivoyage admin has opposed my candidature citing one mistake where I was unintentionally rude to a user (in July 2020, which I freely accepted as a mistake), and others have opposed me as a result. Assuming failure, I am not exactly sure how else I can assist other than running here for sysop (which I'm reluctant for various reasons like being hit with hat-collecting and so on). One option would be to communicate by email or a mailing list or IRC, all of which I'm OK to manage if my AFM proposal does not pass. Leaderboard (talk) 17:47, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Vfd

From Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion#[[Wikivoyage:Abuse filters]] list

According to Nelson Ricardo, "All of the filters are listed at Special:AbuseFilter. They all have a 'public description' that even non-admins can view." Therefore I believe this page is unnecessary and could violate Wikivoyage:Deny recognition. Hopefully we can avoid discussing vandalism itself too much per the previous discussion on the matter. To be clear this is for the list, we could (or not) keep the page itself with its first two paragraphs. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 18:45, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

• Delete - as a non admin here, I can tell that it has no purpose, and an experienced non-admin could just go to the main actual page rather than an open page that can be accessed by vandals and sockpuppets (of LTAs). SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 07:47, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Delete - this is a pointless list, and Nelson is correct. That being said, someone needs to update the templates, since they are not user-friendly. Leaderboard (talk) 08:02, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

• Keep page, remove list from it, and we don't have to debate that here, probably shouldn't, and someone should have simply started a thread on that article's talk page, gotten consensus there and removed the list, or probably better, plunged forward to delete it themselves, giving a delicate explanation of why they did that on the article's talk page. This thread gives that page unnecessary visibility. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:11, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

• Keep - what Ikan said.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 08:25, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

• Speedy kept by IK's reasoning. The delete votes and the proposal itself were not about the page but about the list. –LPfi (talk) 09:01, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Filter list

Swept in from the pub

I am removing the filter list. As explained above and touched on in the pub discussion (#Abuse Filter 29) there is no need for ordinary users to know any specifics about the filters. If a good faith edit gets disallowed, it is much better to contact administrators directly. An administrator is still needed to solve the underlying problem, whether by editing the filter or advising the user. The latter could be done by an experienced non-admin, but the administrators are trusted to make the judgement involved. –LPfi (talk) 09:14, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Page does look better now. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 09:19, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

@LPfi, SHB2000: I have added the list of abuse filters which will update itself, as well as more information about what to do if an edit is disallowed. 82.3.185.12 16:06, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Link to list of abuse filters removed! I really don't appreciate your trying to unilaterally overrule the entire thrust of the discussion above, which is that we don't want to publicize the specifics of these filters. Please don't try to do that again. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:31, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

@Ikan Kekek: Where in the discussion on the Travellers pub mentioned above does it say that the specifics of the filters shouldn't be revealed? I'm sorry for adding the list of filters to the page, but I didn't realise that I wasn't allowed to. I won't add the list to the page again. 82.3.185.12 20:03, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

@Ikan Kekek: If you are referring to the top comment on this discussion, LPfi was referring to the list of abuse filters that had to be manually updated that used to be on the page. That is why I thought that it would be helpful to add the list that automatically updated, because the list wouldn’t have to be regularly changed. 82.3.185.12 20:09, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

We haven't talked much about not wanting to vent specifics of the filters publicly, because we don't want to talk about those things. You should read between the lines, such as in big letters in IK's comment above in the vfd discussion – and in mine about the manual list: if non-admins do not need the list, they don't need an up to date list either. The less abusers know about our tools to combat them, the better. Please leave these things to admins. –LPfi (talk) 20:36, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

@LPfi: Oh, ok. That makes sense. I didn’t realise that there was a vfd discussion for this page since it is not marked with Template:Vfd. 82.3.185.12 20:50, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I speedy kept it. See the section above this one. –LPfi (talk) 21:05, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

@LPfi: I see. Even if I saw that, I still would have assumed that Ikan Kekek meant the list that had to be manually updated as that was what the vfd was about, removing that list. That is why I thought it would be helpful to add the list that updates itself, but I see that I misunderstood you now so I'm sorry. 82.3.185.12 12:19, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

It's OK. Sorry for slamming you based on a misunderstanding. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:14, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Abuse Filter 29

Swept in from the pub

Just noting that I have a question about some edits, I know there have been some changes in admin policy regarding vandalism in the last few months so it might be worth taking a look at this case. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 12:45, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately I'm not an admin on this wiki, so I can't see it. I'm not an expert on abuse filters, but an abuse filter I set on nawiki drove away a vandal. But I don't this we should have that filter. I myself have reverted a few innocent edits, who knows how much this filter reverts innocent edits. Is it worth the filter? I think most of the wikivoyage community knows what Brendan John Williams' target pages are. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 12:51, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

This filter isn't for reverting edits, the details of which I don't want to specify here for obvious reasons, and does not block edits frequently. Admins have in recent times used the Abuse Filter for general discussion, so sorry I can't be of more help on this more public page. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 12:55, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Can you email me about this filter? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 13:01, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks. After doing some research the editor(s) in question look OK to me. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 13:15, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Another question about abuse filters: why does the abuse filters page only mention filters 1-16, and not 17-51? 82.3.185.12 13:21, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

When I first became an admin on na.wiki, I thought the same with 1-2 and 3. What a coincidence! SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 13:25, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Probably because it hasn't been updated in a while. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 13:25, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I guess it could be updated, but I really don't know if that page is used too often. I didn't even know it existed. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 13:28, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, I have imported filters here, to nawiki, to drive away a certain cross-wiki LTA. would be nice if the filters weren't all private, but if it weren't, then some LTA's would misuse the privilege of being able to see the filter openly. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 13:34, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

It is not because the later filters are private, because 15 and 16 are on the list. 82.3.185.12 13:39, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@SelfieCity: Please can you fill in the missing gaps on the abuse filters page as there are some descriptions that I cannot find? 82.3.185.12 14:10, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Here are some of the filter names that I can find, but not the number:

• Disallowed
• Admin/steward abuse by name
• Antivandalism
• Antivandalism (global)
• Block evasion
• Scifi Abuse
• Creating empty page
• Global "ntsamr"-pattern spambot filter - this could possibly by filter 16?
• New user removing speedy deletion templates
• 2019 Notable Edit
• Caliphate disruption
• Vandalism in all caps
• Unconfirmed Email Detect

82.3.185.12 14:17, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Does anybody need to know the coupling between number and explanation, besides those who edit them or check the logs? That would be the administrators, and they can see the up-to-date list of filters. –LPfi (talk) 14:25, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@LPfi: There are many discussions on this page mentioning the number of abuse filters but not the names. This means that some users (e.g. SHB2000 - see their comment above) do not know which abuse filter is being referred to. 82.3.185.12 14:30, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Could you point me to any that is not directed towards administrators (usually implicitly)? –LPfi (talk) 14:40, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@LPfi: The top few discussions on this page have many replies (if not all of them) not written by admins or stewards. 82.3.185.12 14:46, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

The first ones are from 2013. I have no idea who of those commenting were or were not administrators at the time. And those commenting seemed to know very well what was discussed. The numbers were given just as shorthands for anybody who knows the filters or can check them from the real filter pages. –LPfi (talk) 14:55, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@LPfi: I see. I still think it would be helpful for a list of the filters though. I don’t think anyone apart from good-faith users would even know about the page (see SelfieCity’s comment above) and it would help people such as SHB2000 see the name says of the filters. 82.3.185.12 14:59, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I think you're wrong. It's a big world, and there are people in it who feel important when they can get editors to talk about them, and who will go to great lengths to find any scrap of information that feeds their psychological needs.

IMO we would ideally not have long discussions like this about any long-term abusers anywhere in public, even if it means that some of us are being left out of the discussion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:30, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

All of the filters are listed at Special:AbuseFilter. They all have a "public description" that even non-admins can view. Nelson Ricardo (talk) 17:17, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@82, these are global filters, and even exist on the Nauruan Wiktionary, where there are no local abuse filters. Block evasion and Scifi Abuse is local though. Unconfirmed email detect is in the 30s, I think. Can't remember on the top of my head. Same with Vand in all caps. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 11:09, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Please see Abuse Filter 38

Swept in from the pub

To the all the admins here. Cheers, Gizza ^(roam) 00:12, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

@DaGizza:, sorry to bother you, but can you please email the details of Filter 38 (since the only thing I can see is the title)? Thanks! SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 00:16, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Sent. Gizza ^(roam) 00:20, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

 :) SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 00:27, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

false positive on Maui

One of the links on the Maui article recommending a travel guide (http://www.trailblazertravelbooks.com/mauitrailblazer.html) was marked as dead. It turns out that the publisher's website no longer has individual pages for their books and now links directly to Amazon. The URL https://www.amazon.com/Maui-Trailblazer-Snorkel-Molokai-Travelbooks/dp/1976810140 seemed to trigger the edit filter. --Ixfd64 (talk) 22:21, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

@Ixfd64: Removed amazon from EF37 which was what prevented you from adding it but filter 51 might still prevent you from doing that. Sorry about that. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 22:29, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Filter 37

Swept in from the pub

Admins and any stewards who might be reading, please go to the discussion thread for that filter. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:04, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

This direct link should work for those with the requisite permission. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:05, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Special:AbuseFilter/37 if the above link doesn't work. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 22:52, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Review of Abuse Filter rules

Swept in from the pub

I checked out Abuse filter management – Travel guide at Wikivoyage (not visible to everyone) and can see that:

1) There are rules picking up false positives and blocking valid edits

2) There are rules that have not been triggered in many years

I could go through and clean these up but would like to achieve consensus first. The idea would be to take rules and choose to delete or change action from block to tag.

It is also difficult to collaborate on the rules since the rules (by design) are hidden. Where would be the best place to progress thus? Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:28, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Good initiative. I would recommend Wikivoyage talk:Administrators' handbook for general discussion, where one can point to individual filters by number, hoping that no one will be careless with keeping private information private. The ones with many false positives should be pointed out (by number) without delay and discussion on them continued in their comment field, which is our practice. –LPfi (talk) 07:12, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I share your worry that the abuse log isn't patrolled enough. However, I now checked most disallowed edits from this month and found none that would have been useful. A few were just promotional and should perhaps been reverted instead of disallowed, but still not that problematic. Please elaborate. –LPfi (talk) 07:31, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Special:AbuseFilter/38

Swept in from the pub

Admins please take a look. Cheers. Gizza ^(roam) 04:03, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Filter 52

Swept in from the pub

Admins, please take a look at Special:AbuseFilter/52. TIA, --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 06:57, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Enabling the block feature on the abuse filter

Swept in from the pub

The abuse filter has many wonders, and one of them is the block feature. However, unlike many other wikis, the English Wikivoyage has yet to enable this feature (can only be done if there is community consensus – see phab:T31483 as an example for a wiki smaller than ours).

Like many other wikis, the English Wikivoyage suffers a good deal of LTA activity and I know I'm about to open a can of worms by saying this but...as a matter of fact, we have very few active users between 00:00 and 07:00 UTC. We are a GS wiki, but even then, there aren't that many global sysops or stewards active during this time either. Letting the abuse filter handle the blocks for obvious cases would help this a bit. Ideally, I'd set the default block time to 30 minutes (which is enough time for a sysop to come and review the block), but this can be worked out later.

What's the drawback? Pretty much next to none. Just because there is the option to use the block feature doesn't mean it has to be used, it just makes anti-vandalism slightly easier. As a smaller wiki, the case for using the abuse filter to block is even more than some larger wikis.

--SHB2000 (t | c | m) 11:07, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Unless we want to use it without further public discussion we shouldn't enable it. Enabling the feature implicitly more or less approves its use, and regardless, an enabled feature will be used sooner or later.

Usually false positives can be appealed, and editing articles that don't need the triggering URL (or whatever) can continue straight away. This isn't the case with blocks. Having a short block time (such as the suggested 30 min) limits the damage – given that the editor isn't scared away – but is not without consequences. Thus filters with the block option enabled need to have no or very few false positives. I also hope that we monitor the filter logs closely enough.

That said, the block option is effective against a user trying ways to get around a filter, such as by varying spellings.

–LPfi (talk) 14:08, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Support. If we want to be extra careful, we can exempt user talk pages from the block, though that will mostly result in a lot of manual deletions. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:50, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, on Meta, we rarely restrict TPA (in the rare case of false positives), but the impacts of a 30-minute block isn't that different to our formal "cooldown" blocks either. (LPfi, FTR, we have to have further public discussion since there must be community consensus to enable this) SHB2000 (t | c | m) 21:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

We need the discussion to enable it, but that's the discussion where we should decide on whether and how to use it. The "we don't need to use it, so we can as well enable it" is not the way to have a good public discussion. And please don't use acronyms like "TPA", which make the discussion hard to follow for the general community. –LPfi (talk) 06:33, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Well, I've already made my argument for enabling it, but I'll state it again: there are many LTAs that lurk during times when both local and GSs tend to be occupied with other things (often between 00:00–07:00 UTC). A short (probably 30 minutes) cooldown block is enough to stop the vandalism and enough time for an admin to review the block and that's how the feature is intended to be used. SHB2000 (t | c | m) 10:35, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

TPA=talk page access, presumably, but means that a user can edit their user talk page. LTAs=long-term abusers (that is, vandals who use one username or IP address after another). I myself don't know what GSs are. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:56, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm a 18-year wiki veteran and even I don't know what GS stands for. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 18:08, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

@Ikan Kekek, OhanaUnited: GS means global sysop. I've never actually heard anyone use "global sysop wiki" (only GS wiki), but I think that's because nobody spells m:GSR in full – I'll wikilink the abbreviations next time. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 21:42, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Support -Lionel Cristiano (talk) 22:46, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

• I think we already have a tendency to be so heavy-handed with blocks that we unnecessarily risk driving good-faith contributors away from the site. I worry enabling this feature could make that tendency worse. We've sometimes had abuse filters with high false positive rates, and it would be very unfortunate for a good-faith contributor to be blocked by an automated process like this. I don't really see the need to enable this, but if we do, I think we need clear guidelines limiting its use. The suggestions above (blocks of no more than 30 minutes, and never restricting talk page access) are a good starting point. Maybe another guideline would be that blocking can only be enabled if an abuse filter has been active for some period of time (six months? a year?) with no false positives, and that no changes can be made to the filter's logic when blocking is enabled. But again, I don't really see the need for this – I often edit between 00:00 and 07:00 UTC, and when I check recent changes I don't notice unmanageable levels of vandalism. —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:14, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Mx. Granger: I actually share your concern about being very heavy-handed with newbies which includes blocking. My main concern is that we do have egregious vandalism from known LTAs that often go on red for a significant amount of time (particularly ACV or BMX) and other wikis such as meta, enwikibooks or enwikinews already do this without significant issues (though I wouldn't follow the enwikinews approach of using indef blocks). I think 1 week with 100% accuracy should suffice, because it takes quite a bit for a new user to trigger the filters that disallow edits. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 21:54, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

  And ACV and BMX are? Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:28, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

  I'll keep this short per our principle of DENY, but you're probably already familiar with these two LTAs. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 04:34, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

  Right. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:48, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

  I'm still in the midst of creating a draft proposal, but just to highlight another case of admins being very inactive at certain times, ACV was out and about for 30 minutes (their edits were reverted by Leaderboard, but they aren't a GS or a steward) before they were finally locked. Would have helped had an edit filter blocked them. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 09:39, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  How flexible are the block options in the filters? Do you have access to all options you can choose for a manual block? I assume the filter edit restriction would require changes to the software, so we will have somebody do a silly typo now and then, when they think they are doing some innocent tweak.

  A week of checking the filter log does not help much. It helps against typos that catch a lot of innocent edits, but it doesn't prevent the Scunthorpe problem. Instead, the logs need to be monitored, so that any false positive gets addressed, both in correcting the filter and in explaining for the unlucky user.

  –LPfi (talk) 06:16, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Reviving this old discussion, after some thought, how about adding the following on Wikivoyage:Abuse filters (if we're all good with this compromise/wording)?

Since July 2024, the English Wikivoyage has opted in to use the "block" feature on abuse filters. Despite the ability to use the "block" feature, it should primarily be used as a last-resort. Blocks by default are 30 minutes with email and talk-page access open and the description of the block clearly stated. Any filter with longer or more restrictive block settings must be discussed with clear community consensus before being implemented. Additionally, before using the block feature, a filter must have a clear history of 15 hits and be in use for 1 week of having no false positives (unless the filter was imported from another wiki where it has been similarly successful, in which case, the block feature may be used without discussion).

Does this sound good with everyone? @Ikan Kekek, Lionel Cristiano, LPfi, Mx. Granger, OhanaUnited: --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 02:27, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I never used abuse filters so I can't comment on its suitability and scope. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:39, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

That's understandable. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 05:52, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

This sounds sensible, though I think you can't always discuss filters (even in the context of deciding block durations) with non-admins. Leaderboard (talk) 09:20, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I think we should not leave the option of longer or more severe blocking. If the need turns up we can change the guideline after that discussion with clear community consensus (I don't see the need as of now). If we need flexibility, then replace "by default" by "at most"

I would also want some guarantee that the abuse logs get monitored well-enough to quickly note false positives. I myself mostly forget to check them. Should we introduce a page that should have an entry every week from somebody who have done the checking (entries every time may tell vandals too much)?

I also think that enabling a block on some filter need to be told explicitly in the filter notes, to ease following up the use.

–LPfi (talk) 10:55, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree with LPfi's points, especially about the "by default" language. I also think 1 week and 15 hits are not enough to achieve a low enough risk of false-positive blocks. A false-positive block is a severe cost, as it can very easily drive away a good-faith user. I would suggest this should "only" (not "primarily") be used as a last resort, but even that is a little vague – a last resort against what? I disagree with the idea of giving carte blanche for "similarly successful" filters from other wikis. Different wikis have different types of content, and it's easy to imagine a filter that never gets false positives on, say, Wiktionary or Wikispecies might get false positives here. I also think we should specify that changes to the filter's logic cannot be made if blocking functionality is enabled, to avoid the risk of accidentally making false positives more likely. In general I don't see the benefits as outweighing the costs here.

It might help if the supporters of this proposal could give examples of what filters they want to use this for. That might help convince us skeptics of the value of the proposal, and could help us work together to craft a version of the policy that allows those use cases while limiting the risk of problems. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:04, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

...without revealing too much here, think filter 52 as an example (0 false positives so far, FTR). SHB2000 (t | c | m) 05:04, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

The obvious issue is a long-term vandal who tries how to get around our filters. It is not unusual with several tries in a short timeframe. If they got their IP address blocked with each try, they might soon run out of addresses (assuming range blocks for IPv6 addresses – range discussions should probably be held in secret, trusting admins to keep them reasonable). –LPfi (talk) 08:20, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree with a new trial period after a filter change. It can be done through testing the filter on edits already made, so no waiting period necessarily needed. I don't think whether to test a few days, a week or more is essential: typos like matching the empty string are caught with a short test, while the Scunthorpe problem typically turns up unexpectedly even after very long testing periods (there: when the internet domain name was taken into use). What's essential is to do the changes carefully, with full understanding of how the filter works and with some peer review – and to catch the false positives quickly. –LPfi (talk) 08:33, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Filter problem

Swept in from the pub

@Hanyangprofessor2: We apparently have a problem with filter 36 ("Article/Wikivoyage blanking by unregistered/new user"), see Special:AbuseLog/75595: A new user creates an article by inserting the appropriate template, saves, and then tries to remove the commentary, which triggers this filter, as the page shrinks a lot. I'm proposing a solution at the filter, but I don't have time to look in to it right now.

In the meantime, a solution is to insert enough content in the edit that removes the commentary (or newer to save the page before the commentary is removed).

It seems the last such disallowed edit was on Monday, and I hope the affected editors (just a few, I think) have found their ways around it.

–LPfi (talk) 10:45, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Special:AbuseFilter/48

Swept in from the pub

A technically savvy admin should please go to Special:AbuseFilter/48. Thanks! Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:50, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I've responded, though we should probably discuss this at Special:AbuseFilter/52. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 07:21, 12 October 2024 (UTC)