Jump to content

Wikipedia:Edit filter noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from User talk:Edit filter)
"WP:EFN" redirects here. For information on the {{efn}} template, see WP:EXPLNOTE.
    Welcome to the edit filter noticeboard
    Shortcuts
    Filter 2 — Actions: none
    Last changed at 01:46, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

    This is the edit filter noticeboard, for coordination and discussion of edit filter use and management.

    If you wish to request an edit filter, please post at Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested. If you would like to report a false positive, please post at Wikipedia:Edit filter/False positives.

    Private filters should not be discussed in detail here; please email an edit filter manager if you have specific concerns or questions about the content of hidden filters.

    There are currently 332 enabled filters and 44 stale filters with no hits in the past 30 days. Filter condition use is ~1018, out of a maximum of 2000. (Purge). See also the profiling data and edit filter graphs.

    Click here to start a new discussion thread


    Short form versions of various EFFP parameters?

    [edit]
    (non-admin closure)  Done I've WP:BOLDly implemented this suggestion since it seems like no one has any objections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PharyngealImplosive7 (talk • contribs)

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    I've noticed that {{EFFP|pagenameadded}}, {{EFFP|pagenamefixed}}, and {{EFFP|reportfixed}} have no short versions. May I suggest that we add short versions of these parameters of {{EFFP}} just so that they are easier to type out? For example, we could use "EFFP|pna" for pagenameadded, "EFFP|pnf" for pagenamefixed and "EFFP|rf" for reportfixed. Let me know what you all think. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 21:46, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    For what it's worth, it doesn't seem like any of these would affect MajavahBot even with the note saying that the bot uses them - seems pretty easy to implement too. If no one else comments here I'd recommend just being bold and adding them (can even test in the /sandbox). – 2804:F1...E1:EACF (talk) 03:38, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Filter 174

    [edit]
     Done by changing the confirmed group to extendedconfirmed grouping. EggRoll97 (talk) 21:13, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Why is filter 174 only set to warn & tag? And why does it only apply to non-autoconfirmed users? I see a lot of removals by autoconfirmed users that have to be repeatedly reverted. I don't see any disadvantage to disallowing removal by all non-extended-confirmed users. Anyone with less than 500 edits generally isn't experienced enough to be closing XfD discussions. C F A 💬 18:32, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I imagine benefit of the doubt, and reversion of vandalism? Best that it apply to as few people as possible, unless you're seeing specific examples of autoconfirmed users needing to be caught by this. EggRoll97 (talk) 06:03, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Might be worth to run a test filter for autonfirmed users for a while to see if it should be added to the filter. Nobody (talk) 06:22, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think without actual disruption occurring, best not to. EggRoll97 (talk) 15:47, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I see autoconfirmed users removing AfD tags from their own articles all the time in my work at NPP. In fact, it's probably more common than non-autoconfirmed editors doing so because article creations by non-autoconfirmed editors have to go through AfC (and thus are much less likely to be nominated for deletion). In the rare case that someone maliciously adds an AfD tag (without starting a discussion), it will just be removed by an extended-confirmed editor. These rare cases are tracked at WP:NPPEASY and fixed within a few hours. If an editor maliciously starts a deletion discussion, it will be speedily kept by an AFD closer (who are always extended-confirmed). The vast, vast majority of AFD tag removals by non-extended-confirmed editors are disruptive. Even if the filter isn't set to disallow, it should at least log removals by autoconfirmed editors so people can track them. C F A 💬 02:27, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This filter will now catch autoconfirmed users as well. Extended-confirmed editors are exempt now. I will so far decline to switch it to disallow unless there is consensus to do so, though. EggRoll97 (talk) 04:36, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. C F A 💬 21:15, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @EggRoll97: Should the name be changed?
    To "Non-extendedconfirmed user removing XfD template", perhaps? – 2804:F14:80E2:E301:70E6:DA2D:5A4C:A92D (talk) 22:41, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    New user generally seems to still apply to the intended use-case. Getting autoconfirmed is extraordinarily easy, after all. EggRoll97 (talk) 01:31, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Set filter 707 to disallow? (round 2)

    [edit]
     Done EggRoll97 (talk) 17:52, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    This is a continued discussion from Wikipedia:Edit filter noticeboard/Archive 13#Set filter 707 to disallow?.

    We've made the message for the filter, and based on the hits, it's working as it should be (logging all drive-by vandals disrupting EFFPR). Does anyone object if we actually set the filter to disallow? Codename Noreste 🤔 Talk 01:41, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    No objections from me, filter doesn't seem to have any FPs, I think it can be safely set to disallow. Lordseriouspig 09:56, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support if bot and sysop also get put in the user groups. Nobody (talk) 11:15, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe confirmed user rights are also implied in the administrator and bot user groups, FYI. Codename Noreste 🤔 Talk 14:18, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just tested it, looks like you're right. TY Nobody (talk) 14:34, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 14:35, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Edit filter helper

    [edit]
    WP:SNOW consensus against granting EFH. Additionally, I am interpreting this edit changing the earliest closure to the past by NYC Guru as consenting to an early assessment of consensus. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:34, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    NYC Guru (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs (blocks · rights · moves) · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)(acc · ap · ev · fm · mms · npr · pm · pc · rb · te)

    I'm requesting permission which will allow me explain false positives tripped by private edit filters at Wikipedia:Edit filter/False positives. NYC Guru (talk) 08:55, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @NYC Guru Gonna be frank with you, that's not happening. You've had no involvement with edit filters since you started editing, which fails WP:EFHCRITERIA. Nobody (talk) 09:24, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You might want to.. actually get yourself involved? 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 09:40, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    if it means being an admin on another project then it's certainly not happening but yes i would like to "get involved". NYC Guru (talk) 10:32, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not seeing your username on the last 500 edits to WP:EFFPR.. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 10:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose per my comments above since this is turning into an actual discussion somehow 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 01:33, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, assuming I did have edits I an not an admin on any wikiproject so this would fail anyway, but I'll try to get involved as I'd like to volunteer beyone stub sorting and WP:NPP. Didn't think this was an-RFA style discussion, though but I'll let it run it's course. NYC Guru (talk) 01:48, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The standard applied to EFH candidates has often exceeded RfA. EFH needs serious trust as it contains private information. It is, in my opinion, impossible to get EFH without any involvement in the area first. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 02:02, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The standard applied to EFH candidates has often exceeded RfA. I'm not sure about that. RFA is notoriously stressful and toxic. And RFA has hundreds more participants. But I definitely agree that EFH isn't just handed out to anyone. For someone that doesn't have a valid need-to-know such as an SPI clerk, it requires a blend of experience at WP:EFFPR and community trust. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:11, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Novem Linguae:To be fair I'll wait a day given I didn't expect all these comments. Too bad I didn't get the courtesy when I WP:BOLDly tried an RFA back in January 2023. NYC Guru (talk) 03:45, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, this point has been said here before and it might not be a fair comparison. But I think there have been people have expressed here that they might oppose an EFH candidate one that they do not necessarily oppose/could support in an RfA. Even though having sysop gives you what an EFH would have anyways. (I think a layer to this is that some people will only support EFH if they will support EFM as well) 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 11:21, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see a demonstrated need for this, and there's also a lack of activity on any related noticeboards. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 15:24, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, I strongly agree with what everyone says below; the edit filter helper and manager permissions both require a high level of trust (comparable to that of an administrator). In addition, some private filters' logs often contain personal information such as emails and phone numbers. Codename Noreste 🤔 Talk 16:44, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: I've added the countdown and links, since this technically does count as a valid self-nomination and the user does meet the technical requirements. EggRoll97 (talk) 18:25, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose Clearly not ready, and I think this probably is a WP:NOTNOW situation, but I don't see any harm in letting it run if the user really wants it to run. EggRoll97 (talk) 18:25, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose No edits to WP:EFFPR? Ternera (talk) 21:12, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose: Per everyone else. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 22:59, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose for now. If you don't mind, I'd suggest withdrawing to save the community some time. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:10, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment @NYC Guru: you can't just change the earliest closure date. The discussion is required to run for 7 days at minimum if you need it to run its course. A withdrawal would be best, I guess I could also see SNOW if someone else decides to. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 11:21, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Edit filter helper for A09

    [edit]
    There are 3 days, 12 hours, 47 minutes and 50 seconds until the earliest closure. (refresh)

    A09 (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs (blocks · rights · moves) · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)(acc · ap · ev · fm · mms · npr · pm · pc · rb · te)

    Hello! I'd like to request edit filter helper rights. I confirm I have read the appropriate policy. Even tough I am not directly involved with abuse filters on enwiki, I believe I have a handful of use-cases. Firstly, I am an admin and a checkuser on slwiki (see SUL), and I maintain many abuse filters there (see sl:Posebno:AbuseFilter). EFH rights would be a chance for me to see certain enwiki approaches to LTAs and to possibly implement these on a crosswiki level, especially since I had to ask for enwiki filters examples/improvments many times in the past years. Furthermore, I believe I could help in improving existing LTA filters as I deal with a handful of them on a daily basis. I am happy to receive any feedback, and also fully prepared to withdraw the request if community wouldn't grant this rights. A09|(talk) 18:33, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit filter helper for Ternera

    [edit]
    Withdrawn. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:09, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Ternera (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs (blocks · rights · moves) · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)(acc · ap · ev · fm · mms · npr · pm · pc · rb · te)

    Hi everyone. I've been active at WP:EFFPR over the past few months replying to false positives that get reported. My reason for requesting the EFH right is so I can reply to reports where the filters triggered are private. Sometimes, I notice these reports go without answer for longer periods of time than reports where the filters triggered are public, and I believe I can be helpful by handling them when I see them. I have a basic understanding of regular expressions (I can generally read through them and have an idea of what is going on). I have read over the page and understand the secrecy of filter contents - I also have some other "advanced" rights like global rollback due to my involvement in anti-vandalism work and I'm a sysop over at the Rwanda Wikipedia. If the community does not think I'm a good fit for this, then I'm content to continue what I've been doing and replying to reports about public filters. Thank you for the input! Ternera (talk) 14:45, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • The global rollback is a big plus, but I'm going to oppose this for now. Your global and local edit counts are relatively low, and 71 edits to EFFPR isn't as much as I'd like to see if that's going to be your main involvement with edit filters. Thanks for your help and interest in this area, but I think it's a bit early for EFH. —Ingenuity (t • c) 03:50, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've had a look through, and the 71 edits to EFFPR locally are discouraging. Your sysop history on rwwiki has no involvement with the edit filters in the AF log, nor, as far as I can tell, any troubleshooting. So it would be an oppose for me as well, though I encourage you to help out with the public filters. EggRoll97 (talk) 04:04, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neutral, but slightly leaning on opposing. As someone pointed out, your EFFPR response count is too low according to XTools. I strongly encourage you to be involved more with public filters (such as regex additions or troubleshooting false positives) and much more responses to public filter reports on EFFPR, and when you try again in at least six months or in a year, you might have my full support. Don’t let my vote discourage you. Codename Noreste 🤔 Talk 14:43, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Oppose: As others have stated, you haven't edited EFFPR enough to warrant this right, and clerking reports on the page doesn't necessarily mean you need this perm still. You are a sysop on another wiki, but as EggRoll97 said, you have no involvement with filters there. I feel like after around a year, with more involvement with filters, you should be ready for this right. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 22:31, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Withdrawing this request. I see that I need even more experience before being trusted with this. I'll continue my involvement as I have been doing and hopefully have a successful request next year! Ternera (talk) 21:05, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Edit_filter_noticeboard&oldid=1244791182"