Can anyone test? I tested this today on test-wiki and was able to create accounts from a blocked IP when IPBE was applied.

I know that this feature request is old, but I'd like to poke this request and add that I truly believe that this should get another set of eyes and some attention and consideration. :-)

Can someone add me to T309411 please? :-)

Hi Peachey88,

In T109909#7705708, @ToBeFree wrote:

Isn't this what the "block sending e-mails" option is for?

I just had an anon user try to recover their account because their IP was blocked; they just wanted to log in and edit. Why do we restrict access to account recovery where we apply a block to an IP or range that requires an existing account to edit? This would be normal behavior in my mind. The user just wants to recover their account so they can log in and edit... And they can't because IP block...

Oh well, I tried. :-) @Dsharpe, for the record, I take your response absolutely personal and I believe you attacked my character and you hurt my feelings and I want to start an uprising now. ;-) No, I appreciate your response and the reasons behind it.

In T295642#7501715, @RhinosF1 wrote:

This would require signing L2 which needs approval of WMF staff, their manager and C-Level.

Hi @1234qwer1234qwer4! I added the characters that I personally found that LTA accounts were trying to abuse in order to get around the edit filters. I acknowledge that they're not the complete alphabet. I appreciate you for taking the time to locate them and add them to the list. :-)

You all should check out edit filter 51 and 53 on the English Wikipedia... I've been working to stay on top of abusive usernames and edits for years now, and I've concocted a large list of letters that ccnorm doesn't catch. I have amended these letters to the table of letters in the edit task summary. See below:

That would be great if we could get this pushed out. It would save a lot of time and headache. What would the timeline be like if we move forward with this? :-)

I would love to have a clear visual difference between rev del'd and oversighted links as well.

Agreed. This is intentional, and should be. Case in point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log?user=Seeittoo&wpfilters[]=thanks

Not sure if this is the right ticket, or if my issue relates to https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T198651 ... I just noticed an issue with the edit filter log that appears to relate to this.

Not sure if this is the right ticket, or if my issue relates to https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T173977 ... I just noticed an issue with the edit filter log that appears to relate to this.

This webpage is what the LTA user is using in order to quickly generate text in different fonts and use them to create account, get around edit filters, and make abusive edits to pages...

If you take a look at the code I maintain on this edit filter on en-wiki, you'll find many more variances of each letter of the alphabet that should also be added to the ccnorm function that aren't listed here. We definitely need to expand this function and get the additional variances added. I have LTA users who are using different font text in their usernames and abusive edits and in order to bypass edit filters. It's becoming a daunting and long task to update the filter I created so that it's caught up, and it's a cat and mouse game that we'll be one step behind on if we don't do this...

@Daimona - Oh snap. You're probably right that this might be the same thing as the other ticket you referenced. I feel like an idiot, since I authored the possible duplicate. *Facepalms at himself for the stupid that he might've done*

@sbassett - Thank you. :-)

Can someone add me to T71367 please?

I'm happy to see that this is being pushed out for review and implementation. While assisting another editor with an issue and while testing for a possible vulnerability, I thought that the item selected in the drop-down list on Special:ChangeContentModel was what the current content model of the page was set to, and this tripped me up until I realized that it was just set to the item at the top of the list. I feel stupid now that I think about it, but it really is behavior that users would expect knowing that many sites and operating systems display the current item set in a drop-down list for a setting or option. This will definitely help to prevent confusion like this by others in the future. :-)

@DannyS712 - Is this done by clicking on "protect as security issue"? That appears to be only used for security-related vulnerabilities and incidents. If this is not how I change visibility, how do I do this? I don't see an option or way to do so on the interface. Or I'm just an blind idiot... that's always a possibility. :-)

Done.

@Ammarpad: Interesting! It's as if it appears and disappears, I guess? I see the "(No difference)" text gone on certain revision diffs, then when I check in on this ticket and see that you've responded saying that you don't see a problem... I click on the diff and it's there and visible just fine...

@Ammarpad - it seems to have disappeared again. I noticed it again with the diff linked below, and I see it missing again when clicking on the diff I provided in the case description above.

@Ammarpad - Interesting! Something must've changed over the last week or so, because it's now working as it should be. I wonder what changed....

@Aklapper - Please accept my apologies for the delay responding to your post above. When you ask for a specific but not user-generated MediaWiki page that breaks like this, I'm not exactly sure as to what you're asking. Were those URLs I originally posted in the ticket description not what you're looking for? What are examples of pages you would like me to locate that break like this?

Ah! That makes sense - good find.

@matmarex - That is correct. I believe that the '?' is being parsed as a separator for URL parameters and not part of the page title when interpreted by the Wikimedia Software. I tried explaining this thought in the details when I created the ticket - my apologies if my thoughts were not clear or worded with proper terminology.

@Ammarpad - Correct.

Please note that since creating this phab ticket, [[Dunkin']] was moved back to its original title, [[Dunkin' Donuts]].

I searched for a similar situation with another username (where the filters log a 'createaccount' attempt that takes no blocking action and where the username creation is successful): See also User:Hacker689 .... Filtering by nothing returns logs by this account. Adding this username to the filter returns no results.

My sincere apologies for the confusion - yes, crossed out edits do not refer to the visibility of the log or entry at all. It simply means that the user is currently blocked from editing.

@Ekips39: The account creation log isn't revision-deleted, and neither are the AbuseLogs (they would state this next to each log entry in the second screenshot). Am I looking in the wrong place or at the wrong log?

Interesting... so even with the visibility set to "all", it will not return results due to the creation log being RD'd? Seems like a big inconsistency here...

It looks like the copyvio tool is returning 403 errors now. Is it related to the issue with Bing that is predicted on the tool and links to this ticket?

Oh, good call. It is huggle3.css - I think the WP:HG page still states that it's huggle.css; I'll double check and fix if needed.

I definitely agree with Krenair that this is probably due to two different LTR/RTL languages being inserted into the same string. Happened again with:

Sorry, editing the entry undid some things that Krenair changed. Tried to fix, but didn't fix them all.