{"data":{"rules":"page_namespace == 0 \u0026\r\n(\r\n  user_age \u003C 10000 |\r\n  ! \"confirmed\" in user_groups\r\n)  \u0026\r\n(\r\n  (\r\n    added_lines irlike \"//(.*?)archive\\.is\" \u0026 \r\n    ! removed_lines irlike \"//(.*?)archive\\.is\"\r\n  ) |\r\n  (\r\n    added_lines irlike \"//(.*?)archive\\.today\" \u0026 \r\n    ! removed_lines irlike \"//(.*?)archive\\.today\"\r\n  )\r\n) \u0026 \r\n! \"bot\" in user_groups \u0026\r\n! summary irlike \"rv|revert|undid\"","name":"archive.is additions","comments":"removing block on archive.org\r\n\r\nAs always, log only to start with. Will escalate to block once the filter proves its worth.\r\n\r\nchanged to \"added lines\"\r\n\r\nupdating to include new rogue archive\r\n\r\nexpanded range\r\n\r\nseems to have gone away for now\r\ntoo many false hits from 2.89.*.*\r\n\r\nexpanded range\r\nexpanded range again\r\n\r\nretargeting to archive.is spambot\r\n\r\nDisabling. This should be handled by the spam blacklist. --Reaper 2014-01-02\r\n\r\nToo prevalent to do so. --Kww\r\n\r\nChanged name - not all additions are spam; note that blacklisting could be implemented in the background now, but leave this on for some time (after the removal) so that editors will not be able to revert removals of this link, spam-blacklist is ignored on rollback and similar.\r\n\r\nExempt bots as well as admins and rollbackers who are doing a rollback. - KoH\r\n\r\nActually, it's affecting Twinkle vandal-fighters as well. Removing the admin/rollbacker requirement, leaving only edit summary (which is why it is important that this filter remains private). - KoH\r\n\r\nIsn't this uniformly blocked by the blacklist?  Disabling for test purposes; will re\u00ebnable if it's not.  Nyttend\r\n  Apparently not; I can't find anything relevant on the blacklist.\r\n\r\nReverts need a broader criterion. - KoH\r\n\r\nFormat.  -DF\r\n\r\nReplaced with spam blacklist entry. The reasons to originally make this an abuse filter instead of a spam blacklist entry no longer exist -Jackmcbarn\r\n\r\nOK, for now this should be fine - reverted, and added others\r\nBit more specific on external links\r\n\r\nToo many false positives (archive.lincoln.edu, archive.fortune.com, etc.). Reducing to just archive.is (the main URL) and archive.today (unlikely to have false positives). --Kaldari\r\n\r\nDisable as redundant/unmonitored and per Jackmcbarn. See [[Wikipedia:Edit_filter_noticeboard#559]]. Also making public as it's unclear why this is private (I don't think the edit summary line qualifies). --ProcrastinatingReader 21:02 30 Oct 2022","group":"default","actions":[],"enabled":false,"deleted":false,"privacylevel":0,"global":false},"actions":[]}

Filter ID:	559
Description: (publicly viewable)
Filter hits:	17,723 hits
Conditions: (documentation)	page_namespace == 0 & ( user_age < 10000 \| ! "confirmed" in user_groups ) & ( ( added_lines irlike "//(.?)archive\.is" & ! removed_lines irlike "//(.?)archive\.is" ) \| ( added_lines irlike "//(.?)archive\.today" & ! removed_lines irlike "//(.?)archive\.today" ) ) & ! "bot" in user_groups & ! summary irlike "rv\|revert\|undid" page_namespace == 0 & ( user_age < 10000 \| ! "confirmed" in user_groups ) & ( ( added_lines irlike "//(.?)archive\.is" & ! removed_lines irlike "//(.?)archive\.is" ) \| ( added_lines irlike "//(.?)archive\.today" & ! removed_lines irlike "//(.?)archive\.today" ) ) & ! "bot" in user_groups & ! summary irlike "rv\|revert\|undid"
Notes:	removing block on archive.org As always, log only to start with. Will escalate to block once the filter proves its worth. changed to "added lines" updating to include new rogue archive expanded range seems to have gone away for now too many false hits from 2.89.. expanded range expanded range again retargeting to archive.is spambot Disabling. This should be handled by the spam blacklist. --Reaper 2014-01-02 Too prevalent to do so. --Kww Changed name - not all additions are spam; note that blacklisting could be implemented in the background now, but leave this on for some time (after the removal) so that editors will not be able to revert removals of this link, spam-blacklist is ignored on rollback and similar. Exempt bots as well as admins and rollbackers who are doing a rollback. - KoH Actually, it's affecting Twinkle vandal-fighters as well. Removing the admin/rollbacker requirement, leaving only edit summary (which is why it is important that this filter remains private). - KoH Isn't this uniformly blocked by the blacklist? Disabling for test purposes; will reënable if it's not. Nyttend Apparently not; I can't find anything relevant on the blacklist. Reverts need a broader criterion. - KoH Format. -DF Replaced with spam blacklist entry. The reasons to originally make this an abuse filter instead of a spam blacklist entry no longer exist -Jackmcbarn OK, for now this should be fine - reverted, and added others Bit more specific on external links Too many false positives (archive.lincoln.edu, archive.fortune.com, etc.). Reducing to just archive.is (the main URL) and archive.today (unlikely to have false positives). --Kaldari Disable as redundant/unmonitored and per Jackmcbarn. See [[Wikipedia:Edit_filter_noticeboard#559]]. Also making public as it's unclear why this is private (I don't think the edit summary line qualifies). --ProcrastinatingReader 21:02 30 Oct 2022
Flags:	Hide details of this filter from public view Enable this filter I understand that details of this filter will be hidden from users who cannot see [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:AbuseFilter/Rules_format#Protected_variables protected variables] Mark as deleted
Filter last modified:	21:02, 30 October 2022 by ProcrastinatingReader (talk \| contribs)
History:	View this filter's history
Tools:	Export this filter to another wiki {"data":{"rules":"page_namespace == 0 \u0026\r\n(\r\n user_age \u003C 10000 \|\r\n ! \"confirmed\" in user_groups\r\n) \u0026\r\n(\r\n (\r\n added_lines irlike \"//(.?)archive\\.is\" \u0026 \r\n ! removed_lines irlike \"//(.?)archive\\.is\"\r\n ) \|\r\n (\r\n added_lines irlike \"//(.?)archive\\.today\" \u0026 \r\n ! removed_lines irlike \"//(.?)archive\\.today\"\r\n )\r\n) \u0026 \r\n! \"bot\" in user_groups \u0026\r\n! summary irlike \"rv\|revert\|undid\"","name":"archive.is additions","comments":"removing block on archive.org\r\n\r\nAs always, log only to start with. Will escalate to block once the filter proves its worth.\r\n\r\nchanged to \"added lines\"\r\n\r\nupdating to include new rogue archive\r\n\r\nexpanded range\r\n\r\nseems to have gone away for now\r\ntoo many false hits from 2.89..\r\n\r\nexpanded range\r\nexpanded range again\r\n\r\nretargeting to archive.is spambot\r\n\r\nDisabling. This should be handled by the spam blacklist. --Reaper 2014-01-02\r\n\r\nToo prevalent to do so. --Kww\r\n\r\nChanged name - not all additions are spam; note that blacklisting could be implemented in the background now, but leave this on for some time (after the removal) so that editors will not be able to revert removals of this link, spam-blacklist is ignored on rollback and similar.\r\n\r\nExempt bots as well as admins and rollbackers who are doing a rollback. - KoH\r\n\r\nActually, it's affecting Twinkle vandal-fighters as well. Removing the admin/rollbacker requirement, leaving only edit summary (which is why it is important that this filter remains private). - KoH\r\n\r\nIsn't this uniformly blocked by the blacklist? Disabling for test purposes; will re\u00ebnable if it's not. Nyttend\r\n Apparently not; I can't find anything relevant on the blacklist.\r\n\r\nReverts need a broader criterion. - KoH\r\n\r\nFormat. -DF\r\n\r\nReplaced with spam blacklist entry. The reasons to originally make this an abuse filter instead of a spam blacklist entry no longer exist -Jackmcbarn\r\n\r\nOK, for now this should be fine - reverted, and added others\r\nBit more specific on external links\r\n\r\nToo many false positives (archive.lincoln.edu, archive.fortune.com, etc.). Reducing to just archive.is (the main URL) and archive.today (unlikely to have false positives). --Kaldari\r\n\r\nDisable as redundant/unmonitored and per Jackmcbarn. See [[Wikipedia:Edit_filter_noticeboard#559]]. Also making public as it's unclear why this is private (I don't think the edit summary line qualifies). --ProcrastinatingReader 21:02 30 Oct 2022","group":"default","actions":[],"enabled":false,"deleted":false,"privacylevel":0,"global":false},"actions":[]}