I think this could be slightly different from other maintenance accounts: AF account can perform lots of action: for instance block, unblock, degroup, re-group, blockautopromote and unblockautopromote (although these last two aren't logged). This means that, on wikis where local config allows such actions, the account can often be found in several logs, and it's nicer for it to have a localised name.

Change 481549 had a related patch set uploaded (by Daimona Eaytoy; owner: Daimona Eaytoy):
[mediawiki/extensions/AbuseFilter@master] Move the AbuseFilter user name to a global, improve it

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/481549

Imho, it's not "nicer for it to have a localised name", it's highly obfuscating.

There is a sysop named "Filter" on nl.wiki now. I tried to figure out why it even exists; not attached to the global account "Filter" (a Hebrew speaking person), nothing to do with (for SUL reasons!) renamed accounts. And trying to figure out why it has a sysop flag; nobody granted the flag (not locally, not on meta), so it may be a bug? or maybe worse, a hack? No, it turns out to be a design decision...

I see the need for this kind of scripts to "have an account", as they perform actions usually performed by a user or bot (ranging from message delivery to blocking users), and those actions should be visible and trackable as easily as any user's actions. But I don't get why these "accounts" should be dressed up like they are actual accounts. On the contrary: any "account" used by a script that is embedded in the WM software or an extension should have an internationally recognizable name, and automatically be flagged as an embedded script (on the user-end maybe even having a prefix like "WMScript:" or "Extension account:" instead of "User:"), to distinguish them from actual users and bots (operating from the outside!). For anyone targeted by a script, certainly in case it affects their account like renames and blocks, it should be immediately clear that it was performed by a mechanism embedded in the site's software, by technical design. Any "nice" dress-up making it appear like a human (or a human-driven bot) puts unnecessary strain on the community, having to defend itself against those actions. The increasing use of common resources (Wikidata) also increases the need for a single name internationally.

With kind regards, Mar(c).

P.S. If a localised name is desired by some communities (I imagine languages using non-latin scripts), the int:abusefilter-blocker value can be used to be put in the logs as an alias/redirect to the actual "account".

@Marc In fact, there's a patch under review to use the same account on every wiki. These accounts look like normal accounts because we don't have a proper way to distinguish them. For this, there's T212720, which in turn has a patch under review which adds a "system user" group to help identifying such users both front-end and back-end. IMHO this should be enough to distinguish them from normal user. After all, there aren't many system user.

Okay, that sounds good. I read a few tickets but apparently missed the latest developments. Thanks!

Change 481549 had a related patch set uploaded (by Daimona Eaytoy; owner: Daimona Eaytoy):
[mediawiki/extensions/AbuseFilter@master] Move the AbuseFilter user name to a global, improve it

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/481549

Is this still possible?

Hello @Daimona et al. Would it be possible to take a new look at this task, please? We keep getting requests on Meta because of this issue. Thank you.

In T214722#8845922 I propose to use User:@abusefilter-blocker as the username of AbuseFilter account.

This gets even messier when the value in MediaWiki:Abusefilter-blocker gets changed externally (on translatewiki) and now more "system accounts" get initiated, the old one is still also a system account, they aren't connected via SUL, etc.

If we use a fixed internal name like User:@abusefilter-blocker any changes of MediaWiki:Abusefilter-blocker will only change how abuse filter blockers will be displayed in the interface.