Extension talk:AbuseFilter

Jump to: navigation, search

About this board

19 previous topics. Previous discussion was archived at Extension talk:AbuseFilter/Archive 1 on 2016-10-24.

By clicking "Add topic", you agree to our Terms of Use and agree to irrevocably release your text under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and GFDL
Summary by MarcoAurelio

Issue reported at phab:T150246.

188.24.66.168 (talkcontribs)

Is there a way for abusefilter to be configured so that a specified user group (sysop, for example) to not be affected by the filters? To be able to bypass them? I am not seeing any configuration for it.

He7d3r (talkcontribs)

Take a look at e.g. en:Special:AbuseFilter/3, which checks the variable "user_groups" to determine if the user has a specific user group (in the example, "autoconfirmed"). filter 642 is another example, which checks for the group "OTRS-member".

188.24.66.168 (talkcontribs)

Thanks for the reply. Isn't there a faster way? I mean, we don't have that many filters, but if were to have a load of them, it would mean editing each filter in part. Isn't there a one command to rule them all?

Ciencia Al Poder (talkcontribs)

No, there isn't, but it may be good to add a new right (abusefilter-exempt for example) that when granted, edits and actions made by users with that right are simply not processed by AbuseFilter. As always, BUGREPORT welcome!

188.24.66.168 (talkcontribs)

This will sound stupid and lazy, but I wouldn't want to make an account just for that, as I would probably never use it for anything else besides this. Would it be possible to ask you to submit this request, please?

MarcoAurelio (talkcontribs)

I've reported the issue, but I'm not really convinced that we should create a new flag to let users bypass all AbuseFilters, included those who should be applied to all users. It might be useful for non-WMF projects though.

89.123.224.116 (talkcontribs)

Thank you! And why not?

2.249.176.237 (talkcontribs)

I too would appreciate this.

There are no older topics