Project talk:AbuseFilter

Re: Special:AbuseFilter/42
(I could not determine the appropriate place to discuss a local AbuseFilter filter. Project:Requests and Project:Support desk didn't really seem appropriate, nor did Extension talk:AbuseFilter... feel free to move this thread if there's a better place for it.)

Regarding Special:AbuseFilter/42, insta-blocking people such as this poor user or this poor user seems pretty extreme and horrible. The blocks have already been reversed as false positives (thanks, Matiia!), but we really should not be treating new users like this. Looking at this filter's hits, the attack seems to have subsided. I've disabled the filter for now pending additional discussion and adjustments to its triggers.

If the goal is to prevent edits such as Special:AbuseFilter/examine/log/83127, I feel like we can be significantly more specific in the triggers in order to reduce false positives. I think we also need to be very careful about indefinitely blocking new users automatically. It's a really bad way to start experiencing a wiki. (cc: Shanmugamp7, Stryn, Tegel, Glaisher, Steinsplitter, and Pmlineditor) --MZMcBride (talk) 02:36, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking into it. The recent mass attack was really bad, hence exceptional measures were justified. I agree there is some low hanging fruit for abuse filter improvements, see also some suggestions I made at Extension:ConfirmEdit/FancyCaptcha experiments which would make ConfirmEdit redundant. Nemo 18:22, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for disabling it MZMcBride, Actually we were also discussing on IRC about making that filter tag only as the spam attack is decreased now, you beat us to it :)--Shanmugamp7 (talk) 02:16, 11 November 2015 (UTC)