Talk:Global AbuseFilter

Active discussions

Where to discuss new (public) filters?Edit

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)

Special:AbuseFilter/240 false positiveEdit

Hello. It's seems we have a false positive in french wikipedia [1] : CBD in reference. Supertoff (talk) 19:42, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Supertoff Thanks for the report, I've tweaked the filter to fix that issue. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:55, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Return to "Global AbuseFilter" page.