Template talk:EFFP

Adding value to the template

Hello! Since this template is used by a bot, I'm pinging @Taavi: regarding my recent changes at Template:EFFP/sandbox. I'd like to add a canned response that deals with "see also" links or external links, instructing people to hit up the article's talk page rather than having us simply disallow this. This needs to be separate from the existing option pointing people to go to the talk page, since there are no references required. It would display as follows:

Consider requesting on the article's talk page to add the desired link.

I'm more than happy to update the documentation once this change gets approved, and I want to discuss it here just in case it causes any problems for the bot. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:57, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

@Red-tailed hawk Hi! The main thing to be updated here is User:MajavahBot/EFFP Helper Configuration for the parameter values for the new message. You can do that yourself if you want, or just ping me once the template has been updated and I can take care of that. Taavi (talk!) 19:11, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Awesome. I've updated the template, the bot configuration, and the documentation for the template. Thank you for your quick response on this! — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:13, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Edit request from User:Illusion Flame

I saw a post on EFN from User:Illusion Flame that requested that we add a general template for No filter hits found from this username or IP address. I'm pinging Taivo, the bot operator, as a courtesy.

There was a pre-existing code in the template for this sort of thing {{EFFP|nofilterstriggered}}, but it wasn't documented on the relevant documentation page, so I've added that information there. I've also changed the template to add a shortcut code of {{EFFP|nft}} for this item. I'll update the bot's configurations to handle the new shortcut code, shortly. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 23:50, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Acutally, on that note, @Illusion Flame: what should the timeout be for this sort of template? My gut says 3 hours, but I want a second opinion before writing that. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:00, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

3 hours seems a bit short to short to me. In my mind, we shouldn’t set a specific time. Something like “No filter hits to that page recently” - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 00:19, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I've tweaked it to include "recently" instead of "3 hours". — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:44, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 12:16, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I've confused Taavi and Taivo in my head while typing this; my sincerest apologies. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:01, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

@Red-tailed hawk Shouldn't this be added to User:MajavahBot/EFFP Helper Configuration? Unless you want the reports to stay for 2 days. Nobody (talk) 13:37, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Good point. I would fix it myself, but the

WARNING WARNING WARNING WARNING WARNING WARNING WARNING WARNING WARNING WARNING WARNING WARNING WARNING WARNING WARNING // This JSON file contains VERY advanced regex magic. If you break MajavahBot, you are responsible for fixing it.

is pretty intimidating. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 13:40, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

@Illusion Flame I went ahead and added it. Gave it 6h duration. Shouldn't have broken anything. Nobody (talk) 13:50, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 13:51, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Or maybe it did since the bot hasn't edited the page in the last 15 hours. Nobody (talk) 05:17, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I think the bot may be broken at the moment. There was a typo (missing comma), and I'm not sure if the bot's currently running or if it has to get restarted manually by Taavi. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:47, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I mailed Taavi to take a look, but yeah, I missed those commas (always the small stuff to watch out for, I guess). Thanks for fixing it Nobody (talk) 05:51, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

It didn't restart, so I've reverted back to the one prior to it breaking. Feel free to revert my most recent edit there if/when the bot's working again; it should work, but I'm again unsure if we need a manual restart. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:53, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

It works again, so I think waiting for Taavi to take a look is our best option now. Nobody (talk) 05:57, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:57, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't see any reasons why the latest reason shouldn't work, so I've reverted the last revert. I'll keep an eye on the bot in case something is still broken. Taavi (talk!) 10:32, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

EFFP|p

Fairly often, reports at EFFP get tagged with "One or more of the filters triggered are private, and the request needs to be evaluated by an edit filter helper or manager." However, many of these hit multiple filters, including public ones, allowing the general public to see the edit; and most of those are so obviously disruptive that anyone can easily see they should be rejected with {{EFFP|v}} or {{EFFP|nd}}. Animal lover |666| 06:59, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

While I agree with the |v part. I don't agree with the |nd, as you can't decide if the filter is working correctly if you can't see the filter. It's also something that comes up at EFH nominations regularly (including mine). When obvious vandalism hits multiple filters, it shouldn't matter if it's private or not. But since many LTA filters are not for obvious vandalism, I'd leave those hits to those with filter access. Nobody (talk) 07:22, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

If an edit hits multiple filtrs, I can certainly determine that one of them is working correctly even if the others are private. Animal lover |666| 09:55, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

EFFPR is mainly for disallowed edits and disallow filters. If it hits a public vandalism filter too then sure mark it with |v, but if it hits a public non-vandalism filter and a private disallow non-vandalism filter how do you know if the private hit is accurate? Nobody (talk) 10:16, 10 October 2024 (UTC)