Wikipedia:Edit filter noticeboard/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

New guideline

Please join the discussions at WT:Edit filter/Draft regarding a new guideline for edit filter use. Sam Walton (talk) 14:48, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

651

Per Wikipedia_talk:Edit_filter/Archive_7#651 I disabled this filter some time ago. Per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AfricaTanz I have reinstated with some tweaks, addressing the matters mentioned in the archive by User:Dragons flight. Welcome other EFM's review/improvement. See also note in filter documentation. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:46, 26 August 2015 (UTC).

Odd 602 DS Alert issue: log but no edit

Re: [1]

The entry exists in the log, but no apparent edit exists in either the editing users' contributions nor the users talk page he's listed as notifying.

Have conversed with both editors and there was context and a discussion where other editors were DS Alert notified, so the attempt to do so appears legitimate. Checked with Arbcom via email and I understand from them that it's not a deleted edit via tools.

As admins count on the DS logs having problems with the notification process are pretty severe...

Who can help investigate?...

Thanks.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 15:39, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

In email Courcelles points out that if someone abandons the edit after the filter warning comes up (does not hit save again) this would be what happens.

I think that 's an adequate explanation, though I am checking with the editor.

Does point out a bug, having to remind admins to check the log for BOTH log entries or it's not valid... To me that argues to remove one of the filter steps and just make it log once. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 16:15, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, we seem to lack a setting displaying something to the editor leaving the message that doesn't then require second save. Frustrated. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 16:19, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I'll take a peek, but if I don't get back to you the most usual cause is that another filter has stopped the edit. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:41, 27 August 2015 (UTC).

Yep, looks like the warn stage is al that happened. Options are:

1. Remove the warn
2. Change instructions to check the "tag" entry (or, perhaps better, the tag on the talk-page history)
3. Split into two filters, only inspect the "tag" filter log.

Of course we don't like to see proliferation of filters, but it's a reasonably elegant solution.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 03:32, 27 August 2015 (UTC).

Note that using the option to check the User talk page log will work, unless, like my talk page, you have too much history and get a database timeout. Obviously the "warn" part of the process does not create an edit summary tag.

I'm not sure why there is a prohibition on warning more than once a year - nor could I quickly find such a prohibition.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 03:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC).

That was part of Arbcom's new DS setup. People would offensively - in both senses of the word - template warn prior DS-like warnings to harass and intimidate. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:51, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

• Another note: while the filter tests for registered bots, every user is allowed to use automated editing in their user-space (except one). Therefore we should test that the edit is to a proper user talk page to avoid killing unflagged archive bots. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 03:49, 27 August 2015 (UTC).
  

This does indeed appear to be a case where the user clicked save, was presented with the warning, and did not then save the edit again. As hinted at above the edit filter doesn't currently have a 'warn & save' function, warned edits have to be saved again. This stems from it being set up as a tool for countering abuse rather than for things like this. Sam Walton (talk) 13:16, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Staff accounts

There are currently six WMF staff accounts with EF.

1. Cmcmahon(WMF) (talk · contribs) (edit filter manager, afttest) (Created on 20 June 2012 at 18:20)
2. Jalexander-WMF (talk · contribs) (edit filter manager) (Created on 17 August 2010 at 05:36)
3. MPelletier (WMF) (talk · contribs) (edit filter manager) (Created on 14 February 2013 at 16:38)
4. Mmullie (WMF) (talk · contribs) (edit filter manager, afttest, afttest-hide) (Created on 15 January 2009 at 21:58)
5. Okeyes (WMF) (talk · contribs) (edit filter manager, account creator, afttest, autopatrolled, file mover, IP block exempt, mass message sender, pending changes reviewer, rollbacker) (Created on 23 October 2011 at 18:42)
6. Philippe (WMF) (talk · contribs) (edit filter manager, afttest, afttest-hide) (Created on 19 January 2010 at 17:00)

Note one also has a non-staff account that is also EF

1. Ironholds (talk · contribs) (edit filter manager, autopatrolled, pending changes reviewer, rollbacker) (Created on 2 April 2008 at 19:39)

And one ex-WMF staffer has an EF account

1. Eloquence (talk · contribs) (edit filter manager, afttest) (Created on 8 December 2001 at 01:47)

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 03:29, 5 September 2015 (UTC).

Could you explain why you just pinged a half-dozen staffers? There's absolutely no context to this thread. Ironholds (talk) 05:41, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Quite, I was wondering myself. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 15:35, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

You can set your preferences to either notify you or not notify you when someone links to your user page. It is not reasonable to set your preferences to notify you when someone links to your user page and then complain when someone links to your user page. The purpose of the link is not to "ping" you, but rather to allow the reader to easily navigate to your user page by clicking on your username. Rich acted correctly when he used the link feature for its intended purpose. If you don't like the notification side effect, turn it off. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:10, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I was more wondering what the context of "here are the staff accounts with EF" was. Ironholds (talk) 21:50, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

We are writing a document that covers the question of (among other things) who has the edit-filter user right. We have not currently included "WMF staff" therefore this is a salient point.

The question is, of course, why these particular users have edit-filter rights. For example Mmullie has not edited for over a year - and really they have never been here except to test the now defunct article feedback tool. They have "abusefilter" on testwiki so they do not need it here. Cmcmhon falls into the same profile - they did some testing in 2012 of hiding, made a user page and left notes for other staffers. I beleive they worked on the editfilter software at some point.

The other staff accounts in the first list have been active more recently, I'm not sure if they use the edit-filter interface as part of their role. Perhaps they could tell us. Most of them seem to have been added "for testing".

I don't think they should retain the right by inertia - if they need it, I have no problem with them having it.

As to Ironholds account and Eloquence account, they are only tangentially relevant. (If Oliver needs E-F for his volunteer work, and not for his WMF work, then he has what he needs already on his volunteer account. Eloquence presumably did not get the right as a staffer, but as a volunteer, but I thought it worth documenting.)

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:27, 5 September 2015 (UTC).

• Second question, what is the process for granting the right to staffers? Form what I can see they (the actual staff accounts) have been granted it by themselves and each other, even though they theoretically do not have the permissions to grant it, except for Okeyes(WMF) who was granted the right by his volunteer account Ironholds, and Mmullie (WMF) who apparently was not granted the right (maybe someone tweaked a SQL table?).

Of course WP:NOTBURO but it seems that there should be some sort of control and accountability.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC).

• Traditionally (including when most of these rights were granted) the number of staff was much small, and the process was incredibly nebulous and essentially ended up as "if you need it you got it from someone or gave it to yourself". In the more recent past (especially of the past 2 years or so) the granting (and removal) of rights required for their jobs has been consolidated into the Community Advocacy team and the responsibility (except for Sysadmin and temporary rights they grant themselves for testing purposes) has been Philippe's and mine. Rights are granted by us (or the stewards on our request) after a staff member requests them with a proper staff use case and approval from their manager. Usually we work hard to give the the most limited set of rights for what they need so that they don't have too much (no one should have checkuser and oversight rights if they don't need checkuser and oversight for example). With Philippe's departure this has now been moved into the realm of the Trust & Safety team that I lead within Community Advocacy. Over the past couple years we've done a pretty good job at getting metaWiki rights and the most powerful rights such as local sysop, and global rights (the "staff rights" package for example) under control, fully documented and accounted for. We also went through the process of going through all accounts to ensure that everyone has a separate staff account for edits in their staff capacity and rights needed for their staff work.

That said there is still more to do including a review of the smaller rights on individual wikis such as Edit Filter Manager and rights still sitting on locked (former staff) accounts. Those have been lower priority because they were lower risk and our backlog of other issues has consistently been high but I plan to have a through review of staff rights including a rejigger of the process and what rights we give out (for example using the "staff" rights as more of a flag to prove it's a staff account with limited rights and break up advanced rights into more modular options depending on need) in Q3 (January-March) and a smaller review in the next 2-3 weeks which will include the staff accounts listed here to see what is still needed. (For the record both Ironholds and Eloquence have their rights as a volunteer on those accounts and not as a staff member so can be removed/left under the community's norms).Jalexander--WMF 23:30, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't feel like this is a huge deal, I trust that the WMF staff are unlikely to run around breaking things with the edit filter. Sam Walton (talk) 09:24, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I would encourage you to keep the process simple and as Sam says, be fundamentally trusting. The timely removal of rights is still important. I will document that six staff accounts have the EF right, presumably this will reduce to five on the 15th. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:55, 7 September 2015 (UTC).

Thanks for your trust and erudite thoughts on this - and also thanks (as silly as it may seem) for being so careful not to ping in your excellent explanations and descriptions above. Small as it is, it was noticed :). Ironholds (talk) 03:43, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Mailing list

As part of our recent efforts to improve the use of edit filters here the wikipedia-en-editfilters mailing list has been established as a venue for internal discussion by edit filter managers regarding private filters (those only viewable by administrators and edit filter managers) and also as a means by which non-admins can ask questions about hidden filters that wouldn't be appropriate to discuss on-wiki. If you're an admin or edit filter manager we encourage you to subscribe; the more users we have in the mailing list the more useful it will be to the community. If you subscribe we will send a short email to you through Wikipedia to confirm your subscription, but let us know if you'd prefer another method of verification. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 14:49, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

602

• I pointed out above a possible false positive situation for this, I have confirmed that this has happened at least once.
• The simplest way to check for this is to check for "/" in the page name. I also think we should remove the check for "autoconfirmed". If non-autoconfirmed people should not be doing this, then we should at least be warning them.
• The check for edit_delta < 1700 seems bad: if it is to ignore restoration of deleted DS, it should be cut back a little. Conversely if it is to allow insertion of pre-expanded templates it needs to be increased. Regardless, it will fail to include alerts that have an substantial amount of attached text. (Edit_delta will typically be small - the length of something like "{{Subst:Ds/alert|ggtf}}--~~~~" - the length of the substituted template and sig can straddle the 1700 mark depending on the subject and sig.)
• The tests for the new presence of the template in the article are convoluted and known to fail, for example if someone has already been notified of a different sanction.
  • We need first, a fast gatekeeper test, and secondly a possibly more expensive confirmation test.
  • The current gatekeeper is probably quite good. However if we are relying on someone using "subst" we can test for that with something like:

    added lines irlike {{[ _]*subst[ _]*:[ _]*((arbcom|ds/|Uw-)?-alert|Uw-sanctions|T:DSA)[ _]*\|

  in which case we can potentially marry this with a low edit_delta, subject to the limitations above. If we arrange to have the redirects (which are a dependency too) de-purposed, then we can simplify the regex. We could also assume no strange spacing if we wished.

  • For the more robust test something like count ("Z33", old_wikitext) < count ("Z33", new_wikitext) & ( count (derived, old_wikitext) < count (derived, new_wikitext) ) looks reasonably appealing.

Something like:

article_namespace == "3" & (
  ! article_text contains "/" & (
    derived := "-- Derived from Template:Ds/alert --";
    derived in added_lines_pst & (
      count ("Z33", old_wikitext) < count ("Z33", new_pst) & (
        count (derived, old_wikitext) < count (derived, new_pst)
      )
    )
  )
)

I would consider adding:

! summary irlike "\b(rv|revert|restore|roll-?back)\b

And something to skip if a user is on their own talk page.

Comments?

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:51, 11 September 2015 (UTC).

728

@Petrb: This filter tags Huggle edits with the Huggle tag (strictly the "huggle" tag).

Three questions:

1. What does this do that simply logging won't do?
2. Apart from the logging what does this do that the pattern it matches in the edit summary won't do?
3. Why does the tag page not show that it is invoked by 728 as the other tag entries do?

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:48, 10 September 2015 (UTC).

Note: the regex repays some attention.

summary rlike "^.*\(\[\[WP:HG\|HG\]\]\).*$"

With the greedy expression "^.* the engine will match to the end for the first ".*", fail to match "\(", then backtrack one space and try again, it's true that when there is a match it will be within about 23 positions of the end, so it's not too bad, but non-matches will have to go all the way back to the first position. (Lazy match (^.*?) would be the same but from the beginning). In any event the trailing ".*$" is meaningless to the match, it matches anything, after we have already got a successful match.

In fact rlike (the like element is similar to "like" in SQL) will match without the leading cliché too:

summary rlike "\(\[\[WP:HG\|HG\]\]\)"

will match just as well but:

summary contains "([[WP:HG|HG]])"

will match just as fast, if not faster. (The engine should realise in the previous version as well as this, that it is a fixed string match.) It will (should) use something like Boyer-Moore matching to test this very quickly.

It's also more readable.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:19, 10 September 2015 (UTC).

Hello, this filter was implemented while discussing https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T111664 the option to tag huggle edits somehow was discussed many times in the past, especially on wikitech-l. To give you some overview of these talks, there was an idea to flag all edits that are made by automated tools somehow, so that they can be filtered out from "real" edits made by humans. It was decided not to implement any extra flag into mediawiki interface, such as bot flag we already have, but instead use "tagging" system for this purpose. Having huggle edits tagged leads to number of benefits:

• Statistics of huggle usage can be calculated with much cheaper SQL queries now
• We can easily filter out huggle edits from recent changes for analysis (yes, we actually check how people use huggle, as that helps us improve it)
• People can easily filter out huggle edits from other statistics, such as edit counts, so they provide more reliable way to provide how many "real" edits person made. AFAIK edits made with tools are not considered in RFA's and similar, so this makes the job easier for people who want to count them.

The plan for future is to have huggle itself tag these edits, current master can already do that, but it will take some time for people to update to that version. There is however problem with rollback, as it doesn't seem to be possible to apply tag for them yet. This will be fixed in MediaWiki core. If there is anything wrong with the regex itself, you are most welcome to improve it! Thank you Petrb (talk) 07:53, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Active edit filter managers

Using the term to mean over 20 changes to an edit filter in 2015, and excluding those no longer EFMs there are just 10:

1. User:Jackmcbarn
2. User:GB fan
3. User:Cenarium
4. User:Zzuuzz
5. User:Smalljim
6. User:Dragons flight
7. User:NawlinWiki
8. User:Samwalton9
9. User:Rich Farmbrough
10. User:MusikAnimal

Apologies for any undesired pings.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:08, 11 September 2015 (UTC).

"Active" – make that nine: I don't expect to be working with edit filters much in the near future. My burst of activity was related to the development and use of AddBad, my prototype RCP application which integrates edit filter hits. AddBad works well, but I've moved on to other things for now.  —SMALLJIM  17:03, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Filter 61

I've seen this a few times, filter 61 picks up users trying to fix/close a <ref> tag. Could somebody see if they could fix this? I can find more examples, this was just the most recent I've seen. Kharkiv07 (T) 18:18, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

This should be fixed now. Thanks for your report. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:23, 15 September 2015 (UTC).

RfC: Edit filter guideline

Editors are invited to join a Request for Comment regarding the introduction of a proposed guideline for edit filter use. Please join the voting and discussion at Wikipedia:Edit filter/RfC. Sam Walton (talk) 17:24, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Filter 126

I'm concerned that the level of false positives in Special:AbuseFilter/126 is quite high. While the filter has a half decent rate of catching undesirable edits, most appear to have been made in good faith and it doesn't appear to be catching the intended editors, though I could be mistaken. Sam Walton (talk) 22:21, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken XLinkBot will revert these additions anyway. Based on the wording of the warning this doesn't look like a good-faith filter, but I think should be. So if we do keep it we should at least improve the language to be less bite-y. — MusikAnimal ^talk 23:01, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I've turned off the warning/disallow settings for now; it doesn't seem to be catching the intended target. Sam Walton (talk) 08:15, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

External link added to disambiguation page

The tagfilter External link added to disambiguation page is giving erroneous results when the template {{disambiguation cleanup}} is added to DPAGEs, since it contains an external link, and is properly attached to DPAGEs as this external link is attached to a disambiguation page template used only on disambiguation pages. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 04:29, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks; I'd made sure to look out for {{disambiguation-cleanup}} but missed the version without the dash. Fixed. Sam Walton (talk) 10:13, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Re-enable Edit Filter 678 please

Requesting that Special:AbuseFilter/678 be enabled again. 68.98.155.223 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was recently blocked again by Jayron32 for continuing the same edits that read to the filter's creation. This user seems persistent and quite long-term. The original request for the filter, evidence showing pattern, and history of the abuse an be found at this archive link. Please ping me if there are questions. Thank you. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:52, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

 Done though the filter only caught edits from that one IP in the past. Sam Walton (talk) 21:07, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

@Samwalton9: Thank you. If it's inactive for a month I'll ask that it be deactivated and simply add that IP to my RSS feed (though they're blocked for a year). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:13, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

@Samwalton9: Can we please widen the net of this filter? Check out Sloopcaptain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:28, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

 Done Wasn't aware of their use of accounts. Sam Walton (talk) 09:31, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Me either until I found that. It's a new development. Thank you! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 14:50, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Long-term pattern abuse filter (58)

Is it possible that we could split up Special:AbuseFilter/58 into more filters so that we can reliably check why edits have been flagged? I've seen a number of false positive reports from this filter and it's essentially impossible to tell exactly what text caused their edit to be caught by the filter, and if it is indeed a false positive or not. I don't think we should encourage such unwieldy filters. Sam Walton (talk) 20:35, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I was actually thinking along the same lines (although there are other solutions). Could we get some dialogue with the foundation, becasue the main reason for lumping these patterns together is to "save conditions".

And one of the main reasons that it is hard to see what is going on is the non-intuitive implementation of CCNORM.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:08, 27 September 2015 (UTC).

The way I deal with these is very simple: I use the "Examine" link on the hit; use earlier versions of the filter to see if they would catch the hit; and then I see which change actually did it. Then I leave a note with the person responsible for that change. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:29, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Bot idea

One of the least useful aspects of the edit filter is that we can't monitor changes to filters without going through one by one to see if anything has changed. It could be useful to have a bot which monitors edits to all the filters and posts here weekly with an update on which settings have changed to which filters. I don't think that tracking every condition change would be useful, but an update on which filters have been enabled, disabled, or had particular settings turned on or off could be really helpful. Is this possible or feasible? Sam Walton (talk) 08:40, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm interested in this. I'll have to look into the feasibility, but I think I could make it happen. This would require an admin bot, i believe, which is ironic because I just had MusikBot's admin bit removed after completing another task. Anyway I'll post back here once I know more — MusikAnimal ^talk 18:33, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

@Samwalton9: Starting work on this. I should be able to make this happen in a week or two. About the private filters... I assume it's okay to list changes to settings for those, so long as we don't reveal the conditions itself or the description? Also where do we want the bot to write to? How about Wikipedia:Edit filter/Recent changes which can be transcluded here on the noticeboard for everyone to see, or wherever else want — MusikAnimal ^talk 18:22, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

@MusikAnimal: I think so. We don't need to see comments or condition changes, just the settings changes, which I don't think reveals too much. I guess I only thought as far as the bot posting a new section here with the latest changes once a week, but I suppose a dedicated archive would be good too, /Recent changes seems reasonable. Thanks again for making the bot! Sam Walton (talk) 18:36, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I actually like the posting of a new section idea more, as then the changes will be set up for discussion. Let's go with that. Not sure where else we'd really transclude the changes anyway — MusikAnimal ^talk 19:05, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Alright, I've put together some code I think will work, but before I file a BFRA I'd like to see a clearer consensus on the idea. Pinging a few EFMs who might be interested: Rich Farmbrough, Smalljim, Od Mishehu, Reaper Eternal, Dragons flight. To be clear, the information that the bot will post is already publicly viewable. Only changes to the actions taken (warn, disallow) or whether the filter was enabled/disabled will be reported. — MusikAnimal ^talk 21:18, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

• One side note: If edit filters were standard pages, then this would be a simple watchlist, or related pages task.
• Substantively, how about making the report a weekly mailing to the edit filter mailing list?

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:04, 27 September 2015 (UTC).

• I'd rather that this was available viewing for non edit filter managers too. I'm sure there are many who would benefit from knowing when particular filters, which they may have had a hand in requesting, have had their settings changed. Sam Walton (talk) 22:09, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

  As a regular user, I'd endorse having a bot log filter changes somewhere on a wiki page.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:27, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

• On a related note, I dont think the settings of a filter (except maybe the throttle limit) should be hidden on private filters. So long as the name doesn't entirely give away what the filter is for I dont think its a massive deal if we showed which hidden filters are set to disallow/tag/etc, but I appreciate thats not something we can change easily. Sam Walton (talk) 22:30, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I personally never use descriptive names for private filters, rather something vague, but not misleading. I was thinking the bot could just include a link to the filter and omit the name anyway, but if we want the name I can certainly make it happen. I also like the idea of a watchable page, so maybe the WP:FILTER/Recent changes idea is something we should still pursue, in addition to posting here on the noticeboard. It is possible to send out an email of the changes as well, but I'd almost prefer that be a subscription apart from the edit filter mailing list — MusikAnimal ^talk 00:06, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Just linking the filter number would make sense actually, yes. Sure, if the bot posted there and here I think that would make it nicely flexible for people. Sam Walton (talk) 00:09, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

In terms of development, I think this bot task is good to go. From the above it looks like we're all okay with it, just unclear what information should be reported. So, I've made this configurable at User:MusikBot/FilterMonitor/config.js. Just use true/false for whatever you want it to show. Here's an example report: Special:PermaLink/683250722, and a post to the noticeboard: Special:Diff/683250717. Let me know if there's any other way to improve the report. Barring objections I'm going to go ahead and file the BFRA — MusikAnimal ^talk 02:51, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I would definitely support such a noticeboard - provided it only works for the publicly viewable filters; any filter we don't want vandals to see the content of, we also don't want them to know we've fixed it to catch their most recent attempt to get around it. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:07, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Well since the filter would only be configured to show settings changes I don't think we're giving much away in regards to the hidden filters, especially if the names aren't too obvious. I wouldn't support showing description changes for obvious reasons. This looks great MusikAnimal, though I'm not sure we need the 'last changed by' line; it could confuse people into thinking that that user made all the changes listed above that line. Which brings me onto a question actually - does the bot track each change then list them all out, or does it compare the filter to a week ago and show what's changed? For example if I enabled, disable, then enable a filter - does each action show up or just disabled->enabled? Thanks again, Sam Walton (talk) 08:38, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

We can hide the "last changed by", no problem. If we want to block reporting of all private filters I can make that happen, too, however I think we should at least report when the filter is either created or is set to private, and also when it goes into disallow. Just to be clear, the "name" is internally called the "description", and we won't be reporting that.

Samwalton9 I only programmed it to show the net change from the week before. It is not technically feasible to show a fully accurate progression, as for instance one could enable the filter then quickly disable it, and the bot never had a chance to register the initial enabling. In other words, we're not going off of the "filter history", which I don't think is even accessible via the API. I could however have the bot include a link to the filter history right in the report, for convenience. Additionally I could look into using the replication database to gather the full history of a filter, but I think we should save that for a future update — MusikAnimal ^talk 14:56, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't personally see a problem with reporting these changes for private filters, and just wanted to clarify with my question. Looks good! Sam Walton (talk) 15:21, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Spectacularly good and bad news, come to find out there's Special:AbuseFilter/history, which I now see as one of the tiny links at the top of Special:AbuseFilter (funny enough I went months without seeing the debugging tools link too). This page is viewable even by anonymous users. Is the bot task still worthwhile? It generates a watchable page, which you obviously can't do with a Special page. Additionally one might argue making posts here on the noticeboard makes the changes more prominent. I'm not going to throw a fit if I did two days worth of work for nothing, as that code can be reused somehow, but I don't have to happy about it =P — MusikAnimal ^talk 04:29, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Pah, I don't know how I missed that. I agree though that the bot could still be beneficial for the reasons you mention. Sam Walton (talk) 16:47, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Alright, so if we're still on board about this (and really, it's okay if you're not), I will modify the bot to include a link to the full history. Additionally if we want I can increase the rate the watchable page is updated to maybe once daily, or even on-the-fly, while still only making weekly posts here on the noticeboard. Going to give some time for more feedback before updating the function details at the BFRA (feel free to comment there as well) — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:57, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

(←) See the bot request if you are interested; We're just going to write to a single page and transclude it here at the top of the noticeboard. I think that makes the most sense. I had another idea though... what about also reporting filters that have not had any hits in say, a month's time? That would help us keep track of ones we might not need anymore. That "1 month" duration I can make configurable on-wiki. — MusikAnimal ^talk 21:58, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

IP sock filter?

Can someone take a look at this AN thread with an eye towards a possible filter? BMK (talk) 16:00, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

We could prevent specific edits in the way you suggest, or alternatively we could simply log all edits from those IP ranges, allowing them to be reviewed more easily. Looking at the contribs of the IPs listed, the majority of them did not mention Ricky and made vandalistic edits to mainspace, or at the very least edits that were reverted on the basis of their block evasion.

Therefore the second path seems sounder, if there are people who are prepared to review the log.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:04, 5 October 2015 (UTC).

Article history links in Edit filter log?

(moved from previous talkpage) Hello, I am regularly checking the deadlink spam filter and noticed a handling problem with "Edit filter logs" like [2]. In probably half of the cases one can easily guess, if the addition was a spam link. In those cases the main question of interest would be: is the spam link still present in the article or has it been removed by someone else? But there is no direct history link to get that article information without clicking through other pages first. 1) Would it be possible to add a link to the article's history for each entry? 2) Who needs to be asked for such a change? GermanJoe (talk) 16:27, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

To clarify the main intent of that request a bit: if someone else has already checked and corrected a spam entry in the filter log, any additional research in that particular entry is mostly pointless and a waste of time. The easiest way to avoid this is by directly looking into the article history for a revert from other editors. Thanks for any feedback and advice. GermanJoe (talk) 16:27, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

@GermanJoe: Sorry finally got to this and I now see what you mean. Adding a page history link would indeed require a change in the MediaWiki software. An alternative that might interest you is to use WP:POPUPS to get to where you need. With Popups you can simply hover over the article link (or any link!), then hover over "actions" and select "history". You should be able to do this quite swiftly — MusikAnimal ^talk 02:55, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Proposed talk page filter

See Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposed: Tag .2F edit filter for talk page abuse.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:26, 3 November 2015 (UTC).

AC/DS notification system didn't work

Copied from [3]. I placed a {{subst:alert|a-i}} on a talk page, expecting I would get the standard message to check for past notifications when I clicked save. Not only didn't I get that message, no tag was added to the edit summary. [4] What's up? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:39, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

If you think the AC/DS automation isn't working right, you can post at the WP:Edit filter noticeboard. The relevant filter is Special:AbuseFilter/602. EdJohnston (talk) 23:24, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

From the code of this filter, it seems to check whether a previous DS warning is still visible on the talk page. Your edit here didn't cause the edit to be tagged 'discretionary sanctions alert' because the filter saw the previous notice. I just tried this out at User talk:ThisIsaTest and the same thing occurs. If you remove the old DS notice from the page, you can issue a new alert and it will issue the tag (assuming you click past the warning about duplicate alerts). EdJohnston (talk) 03:30, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I've gotten used to always seeing the "check for past notifications" step. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:54, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposal that may be of interest

I have started a proposal that may be of interest at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Give the functionaries the ability to view private abuse filter entries. Comments are welcomed there. Kharkiv07 (T) 01:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposal

I've just posted a discussion about a future proposal regarding a requirement for posting notices about edit filters set to disallow. Please join the discussion, thanks. Sam Walton (talk) 12:40, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Now an RfC, please comment! Sam Walton (talk) 22:49, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Idea Lab discussion about the block option

I've started a discussion at the Idea Lab about the edit filter's block option. Please share your thoughts there. Sam Walton (talk) 11:43, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

271

For some strange reason filter 271 has stopped logging anything. There used to be many dozens of hits per day, and now nothing since 09:58, 5 December 2015. The last change on this filter was 1 December 2015, so I don't think that did it. Have all our filter trippers gone on holiday? Or is the filter system broken somewhere and this is not getting checked anymore? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:13, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Are you sure you're referring to the right filter? I see a steady feed of hits [5] — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:25, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

It is working now. Perhaps it was a caching issue for me. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:27, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Notice of change to guidelines

Just to note that as a result of this RfC, all edit filter managers are requested to post here (WP:EFN) prior to setting an edit filter to the 'disallow' setting unless in an emergency, in which case the notification should be made after changing the setting. Sam Walton (talk) 21:13, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Filter description: Long-term pattern abuse

There are a lot of false positive reports from the past hour or so along the lines of this:

triggered an edit filter, performing the action "edit" on < article >. Actions taken: Disallow; Filter description: Long-term pattern abuse

This seems to be happening to all manner of users on many different pages. It's not particularly helpful as a filter description, especially since the majority of these pages and users don't appear to have a history of abuse prior to these reports (see [6], [7], [8], etc.). Is this a matter of an overzealous filter? clpo13_(talk) 23:40, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Pinging NawlinWiki — MusikAnimal ^talk 00:10, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

 Fixed I think. Sorry for the unintended disruption!! — MusikAnimal ^talk 02:40, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Looking through the notes, it appears that this is a general catch-all filter for many sockpuppets. A few times, when I've brought up specific issues with NawlinWiki, he removed parts of the huge regular expression saying that a specific sockpuppeteer was no longer an issue. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:03, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Post-mortem

I believe this may warrant further discussion. It appears upwards of 1500 potentially unrelated edits were disallowed (this filter is not frequently tripped). Perhaps the guideline should be amended to state modifications to disallowed filters should at the very minimum be batch tested against all recent changes, to see if something is blatantly wrong. Then one should keep a close eye on the filter for say the next hour or so, just for added caution. I hope this comes as a friendly analysis of what happened here and how we can help prevent it moving forward — MusikAnimal ^talk 03:29, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

moved_to_namespace bug?

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T121963

Is there a known bug for the moved_to_namespace value to not be included? See sample: Special:AbuseFilter/examine/781908210, I'd expect this value to be "1" here. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:09, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

This is odd, although the value should be 4, not 1 - see the table at WP:Namespace. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 22:43, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, sorry I meant 4, but certainly should not be 0?? — xaosflux ^Talk 23:10, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

AND If moved w/o a redirect it references a non-existent talk page, and move to namespace 1? Special:AbuseFilter/examine/781927958. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:16, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Added bug report T121963. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:13, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Bug updated, unexpected behavior is also presented on test site. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:05, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Special:AbuseFilter/742

Just a heads up that Special:AbuseFilter/742 has been set to disallow (by Materialscientist) flagged edits. As this is a hidden filter, if non-admins in good standing wish to review its purpose they can email the mailing list. Sam Walton (talk) 09:44, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Note that the bot-generated User:MusikBot/FilterMonitor/Recent changes (formatted template {{recent filter changes}}) does not report changes to private filters, but is capable of doing so. Maybe for private filters it can report only if they are created and if they are set to disallow. This information is actually publicly accessible via the API, only the "details" (e.g. the regex) of private filters are not publicly viewable. — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:10, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Do you mean to automate the posting here? The issue would be that we want to encourage posting a notice that a user is intending to switch to disallow, not just that they have. Sam Walton (talk) 17:41, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Setting the bot to post a notice for any change setting "disallow" may be a good idea. If nothing else, "set 'disallow'-->discuss" is a good way to handle a filter with "strong" settings, rather than just "set 'disallow' and move on".Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:50, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

The bot is now reporting functional changes to private filters, revealing no more information than what is already publicly accessible. This can be turned off in the config. — MusikAnimal ^talk 21:25, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Special:AbuseFilter/743

Another heads up; Edit Filter 743 has been set to disallow edits by Elockid. As this is a hidden filter, if non-admins in good standing wish to review its purpose they can email the mailing list. Sam Walton (talk) 17:46, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Would the EFMs leave a brief description of the filter that doesn't revel too much when leaving these notices? Those links don't show us the title of the filter, we have to go to Special:AbuseFilter and look at the title. Perhaps if more information then the title could be provided, it could also be left. For instance, 743, if more information about the target then it's title (Prolific socker IV) could be given without reveling too much, that would be great. Thanks. Kharkiv07 (T) 20:32, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Stale filters

I have created a new bot task that generates a report of enabled filters that have not had any hits in over 30 days, as specified by User:MusikBot/StaleFilters/Offset. I thought this would help identify filters we don't need anymore, so that we can disable them to conserve server resources. I boldly added mention of this in the header of the noticeboard. Hope this proves useful — MusikAnimal ^talk 06:20, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Ooh, that's really helpful, thanks! Sam Walton (talk) 10:28, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

How do you feel about adding a message to MediaWiki:Abusefilter-intro? That way this information will be highly visible to edit filter managers — MusikAnimal ^talk 18:49, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Not convinced that's necessary - while it's worth checking which filters haven't had a hit in 30 days, I don't think it's the kind of thing that needs to be seen every time the special page is opened. Sam Walton (talk) 19:04, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Sure, just a thought as this is out of concern of server performance. To be clear, I meant only a small message such as There are currently 48 enabled filters with no hits in the past 30 days. Server performance probably isn't really as big of an issue as we might think, and I suppose that intro page is a bit bloated as-is — MusikAnimal ^talk 19:10, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Server performance issues aren't a concern, but hitting the condition limit is. For that reason I'd support disabling all of these. I might do so in the future if I have some time to check all the boxes. Prodego ^talk 23:40, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Special:AbuseFilter/698

Has it been decided that the WP:ARBPIA3 500/30 restrictions are definitely going to be handled by edit filter? If so could the following articles be added? They are all similarly named so regex shouldn't be hard.

• Lists of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel
• List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2001
• List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2002–06
• List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2007
• List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2008
• List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2009
• List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2010
• List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2011
• List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2012
• List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2013
• List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2014
• List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2015
• List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2016

If this is what has been decided I can start gathering the names of the other articles in this area for addition to the filter. Thanks. --Majora (talk) 13:05, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Not an EFM (edit filter manager), but I wonder how many pages can be listed in an edit filter's conditions. Is there some way to mark pages for a filter without requiring to list each one of them in the filter?Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:55, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Don't know much about how/where this edit filter was agreed upon, but we can mark pages without listing each in this sort of case where they all share a common article title string, namely "List(s) of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel". Sam Walton (talk) 14:02, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Personal note, I abhor that ArbCom has created a new "class" of editor - and that it is acceptable that they can basically create any new class of editor by simple motions. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:02, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Raised at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Statement_by_xaosflux. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:15, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

That being said - I think that IF we are going to use the abuse filter on this, then these pages need to be clearly identified as being in scope before the abuse filter is applied. They should all require edit notices and relevant protections in place - a random editor should have plenty of notice well before hitting the abuse filter. For example on List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2007, a random editor that has been unknowing banned from editing this article has no way to actually know that. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:02, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

More explanation here. I think what we're going to end up doing is using a template/filter combination to effectively create a new level of protection. This means we don't need to update the edit filter when for new articles that we want under 30/500 protection, admins can just add the pp-30-500 template. The template adds a padlock icon, making it clear to any editor it is protected. I agree that edit notices should also be mandatory for such articles, as the downfall from this filter-enforced protection is that users are still able to hit edit. They could spend some time making a sizable contribution before finding out it won't save. For this we should use {{Ds/editnotice}}. — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:59, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I have placed {{Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement}} on all the talk pages of the above articles. I completely agree with Xaosflux that these pages need to be as clearly marked as possible to alert all edits that active restrictions are there before they even have a chance to run into the edit filter. I was going to start boldly adding the new blue locks to the pages already covered by the filter but then I thought that I should probably be a little less bold in this area and ask if that is alright first. --Majora (talk) 23:40, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

No, we are not quite ready for that yet. It's exact usage still needs to be ironed out pending more input from ArbCom — MusikAnimal ^talk 00:01, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Noting that I've put something about marking on User_talk:MusikAnimal/pp-30-500.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:19, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Special:Abusefilter/746

I've set this filter to disallow. No false positives right now. FYI, this is a supplement for Filter 743. Elockid ^{Message me} 20:19, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Two new disallowing filters as arbitration remedy

Per ArbCom decision we are getting ready to test out the {{pp-30-500}} solution to enforcing the 30/500 editing restriction as an arbitration remedy. With this we will disable Special:AbuseFilter/698, which is currently enforcing the 30/500 editing restriction by page name.

This new solution will involve two filters:

• Special:AbuseFilter/748 – Checks for {{pp-30-500}} anywhere in the article, and if present disallows edits from accounts that are under 30 days old or have less than 500 edits
• Special:AbuseFilter/747 – Disallows the removal, addition, or modification of {{pp-30-500}} by non-admins. We also are going by user_rights instead of user_groups as there are global sysops who we'd want to allow to add/remove the template.

Overall this is a new and powerful filter-enforced form of protection. Please review the filters at your convenience, and any performance modifications are certainly welcomed. I have have done some rough testing my own userspace which went well. I am going to add the protection template to pages that are already under the 30/500 protection enforced by Special:AbuseFilter/698, and we can monitor the logs from there. Many thanks — MusikAnimal ^talk 18:05, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

@Dragons flight: They need to add the "Thank" functionality to filter history pages :) The usage of exclusive or at Special:AbuseFilter/747 here is quite nice! — MusikAnimal ^talk 18:48, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

@MusikAnimal: Pages under this restriction should also be semi-protected right? Could article_restrictions_edit checked so that only pages that are semi-protected are checked for {{pp-30-500}}? — Strongjam (talk) 00:12, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

The 30/500 editing restriction will cover what semi does for us, but if adding this check to the filter improves performance than I'm all for it. We'd have to make sure admins remember to semi when they add {{pp-30-500}}. — MusikAnimal ^talk 00:53, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Should cut down on editor frustration as well. If the page is not semi-protected then new and IP editors will see the "Edit" button even though their edit won't be allowed. — Strongjam (talk) 00:58, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Adminbot to semi these pages? Just a thought. Kharkiv07 (T) 01:00, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

@Strongjam: I didn't even think about the edit button, that has sold me. We will ensure all 30-500 pages are semi'd. @Kharkiv07: there are only a handful of pages eligible for this right now. There's tons of pages eligible for arbitration remedy, but only in part, as I understand. This filter-based enforcement is to be used very conservatively — MusikAnimal ^talk 01:34, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Made minor tweak in description name, template notation looks like it is trying to subst in to logs (see filter logs) — xaosflux ^Talk 01:15, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Actions on the "edit" one can be set to WARN, DISALLOW, yes? With a warning directing them Talk: ? — xaosflux ^Talk 01:15, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh wow, I figured the name would be treated like edit summaries or any page name and not rendered as wikitext! Yep for warn we will use MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning-500-30-restriction, which maybe we should change to 30-500 instead of 500-30 to avoid confusion — MusikAnimal ^talk 01:31, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

The AbuseFilter log is a strange beast :D — xaosflux ^Talk 01:57, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

And I also agree with you about sending them to the talk page. The issue is some talk pages are also under 30/500 right now, but as I believe you know that is currently being debated. Maybe we should hold off on that modification until we know more — MusikAnimal ^talk 01:38, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Yup, Talk: will likely be released, but it can be updated at that time. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:57, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

• Is Special:AbuseFilter/747 on and suppose to be working now? I few moments ago, I was able to remove {{pp-30-500}} using my non-admin alternative account.[9] Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:36, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

  @Zzyzx11: It is on, but in log only during tuning. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:39, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

  Yep, but by doing that you've helped with testing :) We got two hits, as expected [10] — MusikAnimal ^talk 03:40, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

  Ok. Sorry, I should have looked at the "Actions taken when matched" checkboxes before posting that question here, and I would have deduced this was still in test mode. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:45, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

• Also note the good-faith edit here [11]. This would have been disallowed. I feel like scanning the whole page for {{pp-30-500}} is just too expensive, but we could try it... I think instead we should construct a friendly edit notice explaining the protection template needs to always be at the top. Fortunately with 30/500 we'll be dealing with more experienced editors who hopefully will be able to both see and interpret what the filter message means. — MusikAnimal ^talk 03:47, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

  The Twinkle people may need to be notified to tweak their code. Since Twinkle tagging adds the cleanup tags to the top of the article ahead of the {{pp-30-500}} template. See [12] and [13] --Majora (talk) 03:47, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

  I was just thinking that... I help maintain Twinkle, so I can volunteer to do that much, but not sure about AWB and other tools...? — MusikAnimal ^talk 03:48, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

  MusickAnimal, for removal maybe only scan lines in edit_diff ? — xaosflux ^Talk 03:50, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

  I've never had success with that variable. At least with batch testing, it literally locks up and never evaluates. Also there are WP:BEANS concerns. We can talk more via the mailing list [14] — MusikAnimal ^talk 03:53, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

  re-subscribed :D — xaosflux ^Talk 03:54, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

• Alright, I think I got it fixed. We're now using removed_lines and added_lines_pst, which both improves performance and allows us to add the template anywhere on the page. I removed all that nonsense from my initial post above, just because {{strike}}'ing it made it look really ugly. What you see is what we're working with now. Thanks for the help, everyone! — MusikAnimal ^talk 04:56, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

  @MusikAnimal: Take a look at log now, tweaking the description of the filter can get some wiki text in there---but even odder, it is retroactive! — xaosflux ^Talk 05:29, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

  Haha nice! I suppose there's no harm in linking it. Are we sure we don't want to add an image to the description too? Maybe the little padlock icon? =P — MusikAnimal ^talk 05:37, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

  Scare them away with some barking? — xaosflux ^Talk 05:43, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

• This needs consensus, for several reasons. We can't just enforce an ArbCom decision with whatever means at our disposal. There are other solutions to consider. We could also e.g. have a bot that enforces this, by reverting edits, which wouldn't have the performance impact of those filters, or have a new autopromoted group and protection level. The wider community needs to be aware and involved in this. Cenarium (talk) 20:11, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

  I have tried to push for this before, but was reassured we are safe to move forward with this implementation. I felt quite uneasy about it, just as you do. However, we have a filter already blocking such edits to numerous articles, this is just a means to do it without the assistance of edit filter managers. Secondly I'd argue an automated disallow system is better than the BITE-y reverts some page watchers have been doing. Note this new form of protection is limited to a specific set of articles. It is not some new form of protection that admins can just add to any page at will. The subject of the page needs to unambiguously fall under discretionary sanctions. That stuff kind of falls outside my expertise, I'm just helping with the implementation. For that I do not believe performance to be much of an issue, by contrast to the other less restrictive and more broad filters currently enabled — MusikAnimal ^talk 20:30, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

  I appreciate your efforts but I still think more discussion on possible implementations is warranted. There's some relevant discussion on this at VPT. I think an autopromoted usergroup is preferable since it gives the community control on the autopromotion criteria, and we can manually add/remove users if they demonstrate they can contribute constructively / fail to contribute constrictively in these contentious areas. Cenarium (talk) 23:03, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Two RfCs

Please vote and join discussions at two RfCs regarding the edit filter, including the possibility of enabling its blocking ability. Sam Walton (talk) 18:20, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

RfC

I have a proposed a RfC regarding the EFM rights or administrators who are desysopped under a cloud here. Feel free to comment there. Kharkiv07 (T) 20:35, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Special:AbuseFilter/750

I plan to switch filter 750 to disallow; it has caught only the vandal's edits since being activated. Sam Walton (talk) 11:46, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Special:AbuseFilter/676

I have set this filter to disallow. 32 out of 32 accurate hits, and I'll continue to monitor. Non-EFMs in good standing can email the mailing list if you have questions. Thanks — MusikAnimal ^talk 18:12, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Special:AbuseFilter/751

I believe I am supposed to inform you that filter 751, a private filter that catches particular edits by a fairly prolific sockpuppeteer, has been set to disallow. Without going into too much detail, the edits are a mix of hoaxes and repeatedly recreating articles on the same clearly A7 subject under different titles. — Earwig ^talk 02:13, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Filter 61 and empty references

Is there any reasonable way to fix filter 61 so that it won't catch the removal of commented off empty references, such as this edit (see here)? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:57, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Turns out to be a hard problem to solve properly. But I have added a check for simple comments. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:19, 1 February 2016 (UTC).

Arbitration discretionary sanctions alerts filter

Filter 602, which warns users when adding a discretionary sanctions alert, checks to see if the old page contains "Z33" or the string checked for, "-- Derived from Template:Ds/alert --". Can anyone clarify why this is? Users have noticed missed edits as a result of other alerts already being on the page. Sam Walton (talk) 18:03, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

It is a function relative to {{Z33}}. It is a function to track substituted templates. Can't explain more right now.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:05, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

By my reading of the filter it specifically trips only if there is no previous alert (defined by "Z33" and "-- Derived from Template:Ds/alert --" which are inserted by the DS alert template during substitution). Thus Checkingfax's edit here didn't trip the filter because the preceding revision has several alerts while Kautilya3's edit did because the preceding revision has none.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:59, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I understand that that's what happened here, I just don't understand why it doesn't warn if an alert is already present. Sam Walton (talk) 20:03, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Here is a made-up scenario:

1. User is alerted for the first time of discretionary sanctions on July 1, say under WP:ARBMAC. The Z33 filter is tripped and the editor's talk history is tagged. The user receiving the alert reads the message. For some reason he or she doesn't bother to remove it from their user talk, or to archive the page.
2. A different person tries to alert him under WP:ARBPIA on September 1. The filter looks on his talk page, sees that there is still a Z33 message visible, and decides not to trip. (The filter decides this based on a text search for past Z33 messages).

This may be the best we can do. The filter tries hard to ensure that people don't receive multiple notices within twelve months, and it isn't smart enough to search for tags in the talk page history. It makes its decision whether to trip or not with what is currently visible on the talk page. The person who last touched this logic in the filter code was probably User:Dragons flight. The creator of the code was User:AGK. EdJohnston (talk) 21:12, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I think I must be misunderstanding the filter's purpose. If the idea is to stop people receiving multiple notices, why do we not give a warning if a notice is already present? Sam Walton (talk) 00:02, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

The filter allows multiple text warnings to be given, but only after it queries the submitter to be sure they really want to do that. The filter won't allow multiple tags in the history, though. EdJohnston (talk) 19:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: It can't warn and tag on separate conditions though, so while it's only tagging once per page, it's not warning on subsequent edits either. I still feel like I'm missing something here. Sam Walton (talk) 16:53, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Maybe AGK intended to do a filter that did both actions, but that didn't work so he did design a hybrid filter, the current one. May be worth trying to split the filter in two in this case, one for tagging alerts and the other for warning/cautioning against multiple alerts.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:59, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Alright, so if I'm understanding correctly, the idea is to only tag once (regardless of what kind of alert is being posted), but users should always be warned to check for previous alerts? Why do we only want to tag once, anyway? Users can receive multiple alerts if they're about different topics right? Sam Walton (talk) 17:08, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

"It can't warn and tag on separate conditions.." This could be mixing up two things. The 'warn' is the feedback message given to the person attempting to place the alert, not the alert itself. If Filter 602 declines to trigger, then whatever message the alerting user wanted to leave is indeed placed in user talk. But in a case where the filter declines to trigger, the history is not tagged. Multiple topics is a whole other ball game, for which this filter gives no effective solution. You need to handle that manually. Tagging is a convenience feature that helps to search for past alerts (and to reduce duplication of alerts) so it is helpful even if it is not 100% bulletproof. EdJohnston (talk) 17:14, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, I understand that, but it seems the filter should be warning on every edit attempt - I don't understand why it specifically wouldn't warn someone about posting multiple alerts when there's already an alert - if anything this is exactly the situation where a reminder to check is important. FWIW when I say 'warn' I mean the filter function, and 'alert' means the DS/A. Sam Walton (talk) 17:19, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

We're at such a level of detail that maybe we should run tests. For example, try to leave some alerts for User:ThisIsaTest and observe what happens. EdJohnston (talk) 17:27, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Alright, here's what happens: I added a ds alert, received a warning upon saving first time that I should check to see if they've already received a warning. I save that edit, and it's tagged. Then I add another alert, for which I receive no warning, and the edit isn't tagged. I cleared the page and added a new warning, which warned me and tagged. Per the text at Template:Ds/alert, namely that to "see whether a user has been Alerted to discretionary sanctions, load the history of their user talk page and search for discretionary sanctions alert under the 'tag filter' field", it seems to me that every placed alert should warn and tag; this is the only way the method described there can be guaranteed to show all alerts given, otherwise - while it won't show redundant duplicates for the same arbitration area - different area's tags might be missed. Sam Walton (talk) 17:39, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

It sounds like you want to remove these lines from the filter:

          ! "-- Derived from Template:Ds/alert --" in removed_lines &
          ! "Z33" in removed_lines &
          ! "-- Derived from Template:Ds/alert --" in old_wikitext &
          ! "Z33" in old_wikitext

– EdJohnston (talk) 17:51, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Yep, I just wasn't sure why they were there in the first place and assumed someone might know. Sam Walton (talk) 17:55, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Folks. I appreciate your looking in to this. There are only about 38 topic codes for the DS/As. Would not it be possible to set the edit filter up to stop attempts to double up on a topic within 12-months? It seems redundant to have to look at the logs after being stopped. Only once have the logs ever indicated to me that I should not proceed with setting the DS/A. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 18:17, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

The tag is 'discretionary sanctions alert'. The tag itself doesn't specify the arb topic. Maybe someone could create a handy Javascript to go through the edit history of a user talk and state the person's alert status. Personally, I don't see duplicate alerts as a huge problem but Arbcom does say "Any editor who issues alerts disruptively may be sanctioned." EdJohnston (talk) 18:34, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I think the idea behind this is that if a DS warning is on the page the person leaving the new warning will see it. If so this is bogus reasoning, becasue there could be a previous warning present for a different topic, but a previous archived warning for the same topic. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:25, 1 February 2016 (UTC).

FilterMonitor down

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T126756

Just a heads up that under the new bot authentication system, we add "grants" to what the bot can do, as specified by Special:ListGrants. Unfortunately, a grant was not created for abusefilter permissions. So the FilterMonitor task will not work and has been disabled :( I've filed a phab report and hopefully something will be done before too long. I have a few ideas for workarounds that I will also explore. In the meantime, refer to Special:Abusefilter/history — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:59, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Can you revert to native authentication, or just don't want to? — xaosflux ^Talk 18:23, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I guess it does still run with native auth. Yesterday the bot failed and I thought it was because they dropped support for native auth, but turns out it was something with the new MediaWiki rollout. I guess I'll let it run until it breaks :) Best — MusikAnimal ^talk 23:26, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Category spammer filter request

If possible, requesting a filter tag category spamming, especially by IP editors. This vandalism is somewhat hard to detect and I don't think it triggers any flags on ClueBot. I am very ignorant of how these filters are made, but I thought something along the lines of either the same category being added repeatedly or more than 5 category additions in a row or something along those lines.

Impetus for request: I recently found an IP address spamming Category:Cartoon Network original programs (Special:Contributions/2604:2000:A005:1F00:E01F:A025:5C2B:D7D0) and upon digging found another IP (Special:Contributions/2604:2000:A005:1F00:6D0E:7088:267A:7BBF). Materialscientist blocked the first IP. Both are from Kansas City. I asked Geraldo Perez, a regular editor on cartoon articles, if this looked familiar and they pointed me to an IP editor from NYC (Special:Contributions/68.175.36.204). I think we might have an IP-hopping vandal on our hands.

Even if this individual ceases, a filter like this would seem helpful in identifying sneaky vandals in general. Please let me know what you think (ping me in reply please). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:09, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually this seems to be a case of longterm abuse by this IP range... it was blocked in the past. Will look further. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:49, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I've done some digging and found that this extends back to 2013 at least. The IPv6 are more recent and in Kansas City, but the IPv4 are from NYC and extend from 2013 to present. All have the same edit style though.

• The all active IPs in the 2604:2000:A005:1F00* range ([15]) has done these edits.
• Special:Contributions/108.14.184.239
• Special:Contributions/108.27.140.223
• Special:Contributions/68.175.36.204

All categories are cartoon related if that helps any. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:31, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Got a fresh ip from the 2604:2000:A005:1F00* range. Should I take this to ANI and ask for a range block? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:42, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Possible useful tool

I created a template {{Ccnorm}} that emulates the ccnorm function for a reduced character set. (It can be improved slightly, since there are several equivalent classes.) I tried the full character set, but the system would not let me save that - presumably there was some kind of syntax error, but I don't know for certain. Maybe some characters are illegal in Scribunto modules. The (almost) full set of expressions can be found at https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User:Rich_Farmbrough/temp81&oldid=707451833 .

1 CREATED A TEMP1ATE CCN0RM THAT EMU1ATE5 THE CCN0RM FUNCT10N ...

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:51, 28 February 2016 (UTC).

Fairly serious filter bug

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T22661

As raised at WP:VPT; the edit filter seems to be experiencing a quite serious bug whereby users aren't able to save their edits even though a filter isn't set to disallow. The error(s) seem to been in regards to Special:AbuseFilter/148 where users' edits aren't going through even after they click save page a second time. This seems to be the issue documented at Phab:T22661. Can anyone with the required technical knowledge look into this? Sam Walton (talk) 15:21, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

• I think the issue is that the filter treats the attempt to save a page after completing the Cap as a new editing attempt even if the save was tried after receiving the filter warning during a prior saving attempt. The expected behaviour would be for the filter to let the second saving attempt through while stopping the first with the warning.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:43, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
• I have temporarily disabled this filter pending investigation - having these edits unfiltered go through won't kill the encyclopedia. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:57, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

  Any EFM imay re-enable (revert this action) if they feel it is appropriate. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:01, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

• In one instance of this problem, a helper at the Help desk suggested as a workaround that the author save the page to a user sandbox. This suggests to me that it would be a good permanent solution if the warning page directed retries to a user sandbox or to Draft space. Also, the warning page should say (if it doesn’t already) that creating an article from a matching username does not give preferred status on the article. —teb728 t c 11:17, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
• It's just occurred to me that this is presumably the case for any filter which warns a user who needs to enter a captcha - which other filters are misbehaving? Sam Walton (talk) 13:30, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
  • If no one else gets to this I'll take a look through all the filters in the coming week and remove the warn function from any which might also include the user being needed to enter a captcha. Sam Walton (talk) 15:38, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
    • This creates an interesting, and unfortunate, dependency between EFs with warnings and the tpye of edit that requires a captcha. A change in the software, or even a configuration change can make edit filters breaking to normal usage of the wiki. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:03, 29 February 2016 (UTC).
      

Edit filter backlogs

Hi all. Just wanted to poke edit filter managers into taking a look through some false positive reports if you've got time - while many are a waste of time this page is vital for oversight of edit filters; many serious bugs have been uncovered in these reports and we don't cover nearly enough (ideally all) of them. We also have a number of outstanding requests which I haven't had time to look at recently. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 11:00, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I've commented on a few of the oldest FPRs. Any report without a response is being archived after 10 days, which doesn't seem ideal: I guess it was set up when there was more input from EFMs. I'm surprised there aren't more complaints. What sort of response should we be giving here anyway? Help to the OP if they're obviously editing in good faith (when BEANS must be a concern), or just internal discussion about the filter?  —SMALLJIM  13:26, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Agreed about the time limit, I've just increased it to 20 days. Yeah I think the idea is like this:

• If a constructive edit has been blocked, either fix the filter straight away or post somewhere like here for further discussion (posting on EF/FP for further filter discussion doesn't tend to be very useful as it's easy to miss), apologise to the editor, and then either make their edit for them or give them a copy of the blocked text so they can make their edit again (if you've fixed the filter). Oh and make sure to ping them or leave a talk page message, the false positives page is a bit of a mess even for experienced editors.
• If an unconstructive edit has been blocked, just make some kind of 'not a false positive' comment so other EFMs can see that the report has been checked. Sam Walton (talk) 14:34, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I'll do a few now and then. Incidentally, through doing this I've learned that one can show the EF hits on a specific page by using the Title field at the top of Special:AbuseLog. I always assumed that this wasn't possible because there's no equivalent on Revision history pages of the filter log entry on User contributions pages.  —SMALLJIM  12:30, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

EF 354

I believe I've corrected the regex around pvt...ltd in 354 : I'd expect it to catch more spam now, as it was intended to. A quick sanity check would be appreciated. I'm also adding this to ask if all the capturing parens are necessary within the alternations – do they help with the condition limit or something, or are they, as I suspect, unnecessary?  —SMALLJIM  20:09, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Please help out a newbie EFM

Today I gave myself EFM and created Special:AbuseFilter/754. It's private and currently disabled, as with it being my first filter I wanted feedback and checking first. I looked at other filters and read the documentation, and then batch tested it, but I would sincerely appreciate someone more experienced looking over it before I enable it in log-only mode. Since it's private, let's keep all discussion there. Thanks, BethNaught (talk) 23:02, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

In your batch, or targeted testing - were you matching the edits you were expecting to hit, and nothing else? — xaosflux ^Talk 01:36, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I tested edits I wanted to hit. I also tested changes I didn't want to hit, but unfortunately I didn't do it very intelligently. Now after your comment, and some more testing, I made a change to eliminate some obvious false positives. I realise from the design of the filter that false positives are likely at the moment, the question is how many and if they can be eliminated.

If you're implying you don't think the aim of the filter is achievable, please say that straight up. BethNaught (talk) 07:38, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

@BethNaught: Per your request, I've commented in the EF notes (though I'm not sure we should continue to discuss this there).  —SMALLJIM  11:48, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Marked as deleted. Your point was excellent, sorry for the waste of time. BethNaught (talk) 11:51, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, I was just giving pointers for things to test against - designing and editing these is as much art as science :D — xaosflux ^Talk 13:14, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

No time was wasted here :)  —SMALLJIM  19:55, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

EF684

I've just enabled this in deny mode to catch an outburst of jpg vandalism.  —SMALLJIM  22:53, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

EF 690

Would someone mind telling me I haven't just done something loony? I tested my change and it seems sensible, but I'm suddenly unconfident with this again. BethNaught (talk) 16:22, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

EF 755

Apparently I'm supposed to notify you that filter 755, a private filter intended to prevent a banned user engaging in certain inappropriate behaviour, has enabled in disallow mode. There you go. BethNaught (talk) 17:00, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Request for edit filter manager permission

I want to test requested edit filters, since there is a long backlog. As far as I know, the most convenient way to do this is to create the desired edit filter as disabled, then manually testing it on the desired edits, ⁓ Hello71 16:15, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Edit_filter#User_right this is a highly restricted permission - so will require a discussion period here. Do you have any experience on the test wiki, or else where actually creating filters? — xaosflux ^Talk 16:56, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Linked in from WP:AN. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:58, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I do not understand what you mean by "the test wiki". Is this something on Labs? I have much experience creating regular expressions. ⁓ Hello71 17:24, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Further, the stated reason for restricting the right is to prevent disruption to the wiki. I don't believe this is an issue, because I won't be changing any existing filters, only creating new ones. I can also promise not to enable anything until I have it reviewed here by someone holding the abusefilter flag. ⁓ Hello71 17:32, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to see links to requested filters, with some demonstration that you have a sufficient understanding of how regular expressions and the abuse filter extension work — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:58, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello71, please see https://test.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page for the Test wiki. Nyttend (talk) 17:00, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, but unfortunately, that says "The Wikipedia Test Wiki is not: an area to play with administrator's tools". Fortunately, two of the places linked to seem OK. However, they do not use real Wikipedia data. My purpose is to specifically test requested edit filters, which logically must be tested on actual edits to the English Wikipedia. It seems a waste of time for all involved for me to copy and paste example edit filters here, let alone on a completely separate wiki. ⁓ Hello71 21:01, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• I'm going to have to go with MusikAnimal here, wanting to run tests is not enough for me to support adding edit filter editing to someone. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:13, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Captcha loop

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T22661

Hi, there seems to be a bug.

I was trying to add external links to a page.

When trying to submit, I get this warning:

"It appears you are adding external links to many different Wikipedia pages in rapid succession. [bla bla] If you're sure you still want to make this edit, go to the bottom of this page and click 'Save page' again, and it will be submitted as is."

The "many different Wikipedia pages" part seems incorrect, as I haven't added links to any page recently.

When hitting "Submit" again, I get the captcha again, then after solving the captcha, I get the warning again.

So I'm in a loop and can't get the edit submitted.

--93.223.10.7 (talk) 22:11, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

What filter was this with? It's a known bug so we should try to avoid it. Sam Walton (talk) 22:15, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I think it's filter 80 (the warning doesn't say which filter it is, but I found the filter by searching for the warning text) --93.223.10.7 (talk) 22:19, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I did use the "show changes" button a couple times, before eventually submitting, so this seems to have triggered the filter? --93.223.10.7 (talk) 22:28, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

It's an issue with the way captcha and the edit filter interact inherently; if you have to input a captcha it resets the warning I believe. Hopefully it will be fixed soon. Sam Walton (talk) 22:31, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Condition limit

Over the past few days number of edits reaching the condition limit has been consistently high, usually at least 2%, often above 3%. The immediate cause of this, it seems, was my addition of new logic to filter 755. (This is a private filter to hinder a currently active troll.) As a consequence that filter is not working properly. If anyone thinks they can optimise it without removing functionality, please try. Alternatively would it be possible to rationalise conditions elsewhere? It looks like 750, and perhaps 751, could be merged into filter 58. Also, @Prodego: do you still need test filter 1 active?

Sorry if I'm stepping on people's toes with my big filter but it would be really great if we could get it working again, given the disruption this user has been causing the past few weeks. BethNaught (talk) 11:10, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

@BethNaught: looks like you are only interested in specific namespaces, try adding a namespace filter (article_namespace) early in the filter if you don't need everything. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: thank you for the suggestion. By short-circuiting some edits away from the first block, it seems (almost) all edits are now being properly evaluated. BethNaught (talk) 18:02, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

See also User:MusikBot/StaleFilters/Report (also mentioned in the header at the top of this page). Some of these we probably don't need anymore — MusikAnimal ^talk 18:07, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

New 500/30 level is live

Pages can be converted to protection and the edit filter blocks should be able to be removed now. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:22, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: I can help with this. As for the padlock, we should probably update {{pp-30-500}} to use {{pp}}. I've asked at Template talk:Pp#Extended confirmed protection. Feel free to weigh in. I've guess I need to update Twinkle too — MusikAnimal ^talk 04:50, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

More at WP:VPT#New protection level. I'm going to refrain from protecting more of these pages for the time being — MusikAnimal ^talk 05:04, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Pages protected and filter disabled — MusikAnimal ^talk 18:08, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

CSD filter/tag rooting up a lot of false positives

Lately, in the past few days I guess, there has been some goings-on with the CSD filter that seem to have created a lot of false positives, such as here and here, where an edit to a CSD-tagged page resulted in filter 29 believing that the CSD template was removed, but instead it was just edited. The latest edition by Dragons flight made some formatting changes, but of course, this may have made some functional difference if a mistake was made. Could someone please check it out? Thanks, ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 19:30, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

There is something kind of mysterious here. In the log of the Horatio Brannen edit [16], it clearly shows the speedy template being removed. (In other words, not a false positive.) But in the diff of the same edit [17], there was no change made to the speedy template. Somehow the data being sent to the filter (and the log) seems to be out-of-sync with the results stored in the database. That's a bad sign. Perhaps it is related to an edit conflict, or the use of visual editor, but it is not a problem I've noticed before. Dragons flight (talk) 21:03, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I noticed one of these around then, but not since.  —SMALLJIM  13:27, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I am fairly certain that I have correctly guessed the cause of the issue and have "created a task" on Phabricator: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T130694. ⁓ Hello71 02:59, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Er, I didn't read the part where User:Dragons flight mentioned edit conflicts. I doubt the issue is related to VE, since as far as I know that is entirely client side and whatever the result of the edit, it is submitted via the common APIs. Further, Special:AbuseLog/15158997 used mobile web edit, not VE. ⁓ Hello71 03:02, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Noyster reported some more instances at WP:Edit filter/False positives/Reports#Noyster.  —SMALLJIM  10:52, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T73947, 1.5 year old bug, but much more noticeable now due to default VE. ⁓ Hello71 16:02, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

"This bug has been fixed and the fix will be deployed to Wikimedia wikis this week, with MediaWiki version 1.27.0-wmf.21, per https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki_1.27/Roadmap." [18] ⁓ Hello71 11:34, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

EF 756

Per the guideline, I'm notifying you that I have enabled this filter in disallow mode and will leave it that way for the time being. It's broad but I will be monitoring the logs. BethNaught (talk) 21:54, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Changes to condition count

This is going to significantly alter how conditions are counted. In practice, the number of conditions used by most existing filters should decline, allowing for more filters within the existing limit. Dragons flight (talk) 19:38, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

@Dragons flight: Awesome! Any news on getting a per-filter condition counter again? Sam Walton (talk) 12:37, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

No. For performance reasons, the devs said they wanted someone to rewrite the profiling system to reduce the number of memcache calls from hundreds to something less than 10. I don't have the time to do it, and no one seems interested in the issue. You could try encouraging Matma Rex (talk · contribs) to do it, since he made the current edit. Dragons flight (talk) 12:47, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

The update is now live and the percentage of filters exceeding the limit is now consistently zero. I'm not really sure how much head room this really gives us, but my very rough guess is that the system would now accommodate somewhere between 30% and 100% more filters. Dragons flight (talk) 15:47, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Duplicate of sport infobox vandalism filter for the NHL playoffs

A few months ago, Samwalton9 created Special:AbuseFilter/735 on my request to mark edits to the team infoboxes in various sports leagues due to the growing prevalence of vandals changing the team owner field to that of an opposing team or player. Let it not be said that trolls are never afraid to overuse a tired joke. In general, about 95% of the time this field is altered, it is vandalism. That percentage was enough to argue the filter should only mark such changes as "potential vandalism", rather than deny the edit. However, thanks to the NHL playoffs, this type of vandalism has ramped up considerably. Since the playoffs started a week ago, filter 735 has been triggered at least 43 times on NHL team infoboxes alone, and every single edit is either to vandalize this field, or to revert the vandalism. So my request, initally to Samwalton9 and now here, is that a duplicate of 735 be created specific to {{Infobox NHL team}} to deny edits to this infobox from anon and non-autoconfirmed editors, and be enabled until the conclusion of the Stanley Cup Playoffs - at which point it can be disabled and 735 takes back over. This could potentially also be put in place for the NBA infobox during their playoffs, but I would have to first check that edits to those boxes are all vandalism/reverts and that the NBA project is interested before I do so. Thanks, Resolute 14:03, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Special:AbuseFilter/759

New disallowing filter. Should be super temporary, at least before being merged into existing filters for similar purposes. I've got a close eye on it — MusikAnimal ^talk 15:13, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Date vandalism filter

One of the most common unaddressed problems plaguing the area of Children's television programming is that of unsourced date changes. This problem is common in other areas as well including pop-culture media topics like film and video games. Typically performed by an IP or a red-linked (new) editor, any individual date change looks fine to an editor assuming good faith, but when the edit history of the editor performing the date change is examined it is not uncommon to see that they have made nothing but unsourced date changes (often at a rapid pace). It is common to see minor changes like incrementing or decrementing the day by 1 or 2 (e.g. April 22, 2016 becomes April 23, 2016 or April 22, 2015) or changing a single number (e.g. April 22 becomes April 12), adding data specificity (e.g. April 2016 becomes April 22, 2016), and in long-term cases the same editor will sometimes change the same date multiple times (e.g. April 2016 first changes to April 22, 2016 and then a few weeks later to April 25, 2016, and then a few weeks later back to April 22, 2016). It is extremely common for this kind of single-purpose account to remain completely uncommunicative when contacted at article or user talk and to use no edit summary.

There are several factors which suggest that blocking or hard-filtering should not be used in this case. Most obviously, these are often juvenile topics (Saturday morning cartoon shows, direct-to-video sequels to theater releases, educational video games, etc) and there is a good possibility that the editor making the change is a child who doesn't know how to use Wikipedia. Secondly, many of the IP-based edits come from non-English-speaking countries (often in the Philippines) so they may be unable to understand or reply to talk page comments. Thirdly, reliable sourcing for this kind of fact is often difficult to come by and good faith newcomers often have a hazy concept of source reliability. So a hard-filter that bars this kind of edit would cut against Wikipedia's "The encyclopedia anyone can edit" philosophy. But the potential for vandalism (or original research) is so high in this case that it would be extremely helpful to have a tag established in the same vein as Filter 391 (possibly even in tandem with something like Filter 249).

Would it be possible to establish a filter to tag edits made by editors who are performing little or no other edits except unsourced date changes? -Thibbs (talk) 14:07, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I have little of substance to add to the treatment side here as the options available are outside of my skill set. That said, I have a good bit of raw data to offer in terms of diagnosis.

For a couple of months, I've been placing notes on talk pages of users making changes of the type described above, including the link WP:KIDSTVDATES. A complete list of these users is thus available at Special:WhatLinksHere/Wikipedia:KIDSTVDATES.

Similarly, I was tracking one vandal making rapid-fire unsourced changes to recorded and released dates for songs from artists mostly associated with the late 1980s. It has since expanded and the list of user names and IPs also includes some edits changing genres and artists well outside of the 1980s. That list is available here. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:23, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Special:AbuseFilter/760

Another new disallowing filter. Not sure how long we'll keep this enabled, but I'm very confident in the accuracy. I will be monitoring the log closely nonetheless — MusikAnimal ^talk 22:32, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Currently this is in the same scope as EF 684 (temporary vandalism), FYI. Probably that code should be merged into this one. BethNaught (talk) 22:35, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Merged! Thank you — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:20, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Attention needed at WP:EFR

User:Samwalton9 advised me to make a thread here about my entry on EFR since he's a bit swamped it seems. So here's a heads up. I'll attach an addendum here since the user in question is reading said reports and is changing their behavior accordingly: the user no longer does the "rv v" edit summary thing, so that much is not needed. Likewise, I suspect they would attempt to bypass this filter, i.e not directly undoing edits, but rather removing my additions manually in some way. The user also commands IP addresses starting with "31." and "217." so making those unable to revert my edits would be necessary as well. ThrowawayAccountForEFR (talk) 19:20, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Mr.Z-bot

Mr.Z-bot (talk · contribs) has recently re-started logging EF hits at WP:AIV. I don't know why it's re-started or if it's going to last, but it should be worth updating the list of filter hits that it reports. As a start I've deleted all the filters listed on that page that are now flagged as disabled or deleted (and semi-protected the page).  —SMALLJIM  10:37, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Yeah I noticed it wasn't reporting and nudged Mr.Z about it. Thanks for giving the list a much-needed spring cleaning. Note also that being a .js file only admins can edit it anyway :) — MusikAnimal ^talk 19:34, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Special:AbuseFilter/684

An older temporary filter that's now being used to disallow some disruption at WP:AIV. As the name of the filter implies, this should be temporary — MusikAnimal ^talk 19:07, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

@MusikAnimal: Is there a specific reason this filter is private? — Music1201 ^talk 23:20, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Usually when a filter is targeted toward a specific user we make it private, as they could easily check the logs and figure out how to get around it. Then it's a game of cat and mouse that's no fun for anyone =P Also that filter has historically been private and I wouldn't want the logs to be revealed. You are welcome to email me with questions — MusikAnimal ^talk 00:19, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Request for Edit Filter Manager right for Music1201

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.

---

• Music1201 (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 am requesting the edit filter manager right to help maintain the current filters. If this right is granted to me, I plan to create filters similar to Filter 11, and maintain and improve filters similar to that. I have extensive experience with the AbuseFilter extension on my own MediaWiki installation. Thank you — Music1201 ^talk 03:26, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Oppose Sorry Music1201, but with only a 44 day old account I don't think you have enough of a track record to be granted this permission on enwiki. As you should know - it can be highly dangerous to every editor. You certainly are welcome to suggest new filters at Wikipedia:Edit_filter/Requested. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:44, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

As much as I AGF, this user also appears to be hat shopping a lot for a new user. (1, 2, 3, 4). — xaosflux ^Talk 09:10, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Please review WP:EFM. The edit filter has potential for (even accidental) abuse that can cause massive disruption. As such the user right is restricted to those of utmost trust. I appreciate your offer to help nonetheless! As Xaosflux said, you can request new filters at WP:EF/R, but also feel free to share your input on existing requests — MusikAnimal ^talk 04:28, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: I can certainly understand why you think this looks like hat collecting, but the truth is, my current rights (Pending changes and rollback) are used hundreds of times per day. I do although agree with your original comment, and therefore am withdrawing my request.

 Request withdrawn — Preceding unsigned comment added by Music1201 (talk • contribs)

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 Request

I am requesting that this edit filter is made (basically preventing non-administrators from adding {{Administrator topicon}} or {{User admin}} to their user pages. (You'll have to click edit to properly see the code:

(action == 'edit') & (  !("sysop" in user_groups | "bot" in user_groups) & ( (article_namespace == 2|3) & ( sysoptemplate_reg := {{Administrator topicon}}|{{User admin}}  ! removed_lines irlike sysoptemplate_reg & ( added_lines irlike sysoptemplate_reg ) ) )

Thanks. — Music1201 ^talk 03:56, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose I don't think this is a good use of editfilter cycles - are you seeing any specific abuse here that is going unchecked? There are numerous ways to bypass that filter that would achieve the same affect. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:12, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Agreed, unless there's some specific vandal that we want to start tracking, than this blanket pretend-admin prevention isn't the ideal candidate for a filter. One could also claim to be a checkuser, etc; while these claims are inappropriate, they presumably are quite infrequent, and mostly harmless. Also moving forward please make filter requests at WP:EF/R — MusikAnimal ^talk 14:52, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Special:AbuseFilter/764

New disallowing private filter. Not sure how long we'll keep this one running. Email me if you have questions — MusikAnimal ^talk 14:56, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Special:AbuseFilter/769

A new private disallowing filter. Email me if you have questions, but the reply won't be a surprise. BethNaught (talk) 17:08, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Edit Filter Permissions request for Samtar

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.

---

The assignment of the edit filter manager user right to non-admins is highly restricted. It should only be requested by and given to highly trusted users; when there is a clear, demonstrated need for it. — xaosflux ^Talk

• Samtar (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 all, I'd like to begin to help a bit more with the edit filters - I've been active on WP:EF/R suggesting filter solutions (one of which is now being used). I see a couple of these requests which have workable regex have yet to be tested, and would use this permission to work through these, as well as maintain the current filters. I would like to think my involvement here and elsewhere on the project has proven my technical competance and trustworthiness, and understand the consequences of getting a filter wrong. I would work closly with other managers and would ask for advice before moving filters out of a testing (logging) action. I welcome any questions you may have, thank you -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 14:02, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Howdy, If you could take and complete one valid open request from WP:EFR, which would it be, and what would you use for your filter syntax? Aside from this policy/technical question, I don't see any issues with granting this right. OTRS experience and GSoC mentorships are a big plus in my book Thanks, Nakon 03:08, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

@Nakon: Thanks for your comments - I would choose to look into the crosses for deceased people request, as I believe this would probably recieve a significant number of hits and be a relatively good use of edit filter cycles. Below is my mocked syntax, which you may need to view after clicking edit, as the first ✝ is defined as a html entity to prevent people using & #10013; to defeat the filter. The regex is designed to match on Firstname[space]Lastname(cross).

!("confirmed" in user_groups) & (
  article_namespace == 0 & (
    crosses :="^(\w+( \w+(✝|✝|\+))*)?";
    added_lines irlike crosses & (
      !(removed_lines irlike crosses)
    )
  )
)

Thank you again for your consideration -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 07:39, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support, don't see any issues here, thanks for the sample edit filter! Nakon 01:41, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
• Comment the technical update above seems OK; we usually let these discussions stay open for a week for feedback from the community as to the "highly trusted" nature of those seeking it. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:47, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support I've talked to Samtar in private about this. It's clear he really wants to help out, and we certainly could use it at WP:EF/R. I can vouch for his technical understanding. The only concerns I can think of are with the lack of the admin toolset, Samtar will not able to perform alternative preventive measures such as page protection and the title blacklist; however I trust he has the judgement to know when an edit filter is appropriate, and when to seek admin assistance. Happy to help him along the way, as he already knows — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:26, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support Samtar appears to be an experienced editor with plenty of technical experience and a demonstrated need for this right. We could really use him around WP:EF/R which is pretty much always backlogged. Thanks for volunteering! Omni Flames (talk) 10:25, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

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 permissions request for ATS

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.

---

• ATS (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 am requesting viewing permission, likely restricted to Special:AbuseFilter/770, per this discussion. Permission would allow me to more easily monitor specific changes preferred by the disruptive editor. I will do my best to not use the permission incorrectly; I will not make changes to the filter without consulting a more experienced manager.

Thank you for your consideration. 🖖ATS / Talk 22:19, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Comment: I don't know if a user group exists which just has abusefilter-log-private, so the permission would have to be the full EFM? In relation to that filter, it has had four hits, all of which don't seem to be false positives. I could tag them with an existing tag (e.g. possible vandalism), making it visible here to yourself without having to have any additional permissions. Bare in mind, the possible vandalism tag is also applied by three other filters, so some of the edits may not be of interest to you. Another option would be to create a new tag, which I'd like another EFM's opinion on -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 22:31, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Samtar. I would be amenable to whatever allows me to best fight any continued disruption by the editor while making things as simple (and contained) as possible. To be disruptive in the effort to fight disruption is not logical. 🖖ATS / Talk 22:35, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

@Samtar: There is the global-abuse filter group, which I believe grants the right for only viewing. However, that's globally. You could tag it with something like possible cause of death vandalism? Omni Flames (talk) 22:40, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

@ATS and Omni Flames: after consideration (and badgering musikanimal!), I've made the edit filter public - you'll now be able to check edits listed here. I'll leave you to withdraw this permissions request at your own discretion -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 22:57, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Samtar. I hereby withdraw the request. 🖖ATS / Talk 23:10, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

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.

Special:AbuseFilter/775

New private disallowing filter, has been tested thoroughly with no FPs and a couple of hits. Email me if you have any questions -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 12:47, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Updated filter # above, moved from personal testing filter -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 12:52, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

EFN archives

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.

---

Looks like some of this page's archives are out of order, or at least the archive box is - anyone feel like fixing it? (I'd post this on WT:ENF, but we've redirected that!) — xaosflux ^Talk 11:48, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: What's wrong? I don't see anything obviously out of place. Sam Walton (talk) 13:10, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Ok never mind - I had 2 pages mixed up. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:45, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

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.

Special:AbuseFilter/776

New private disallow - I've noticed an uptick in activity so I've gone and set it to disallow instead of merging just yet. No FPs, email with any questions -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 13:28, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Special:AbuseFilter/189

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.

---

Shouldn't the old_wikitext line be edited to replace rlike with irlike? That way the whole string can be made case-insensitive, thus disallowing the need for the (c|C) and the (l|L). In fact, this way we wouldn't need a regex on that line at all. Additionally, wouldn't it be best to use "confirmed" instead of "autoconfirmed", so that this filter won't catch confirmed users either? Omni Flames (talk) 05:07, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Yup, having old_wikitext irlike "Category:Living people" would work from the looks of it - that being said, is there a reason this was originally set up this way? Pinging @Dragons flight: as creator -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 08:28, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Potentially the intention was to reduce the runtime of the condition, given that the category will only have two variable-case letters. I'm not an expert on the internal workings of regex engines though. Incidentally, colons don't need escaping. BethNaught (talk) 08:36, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

@BethNaught: completely right, updated the above to un-escape the colon. Looks like you're bang on with the perfomance cost too - http://regexhero.net/tester/ suggests the current method is ~35% quicker. No need to change -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 08:53, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Huh, you're right. I knew that there had to be some kind-of reason behind it. Thanks for that. Although I still think that "autoconfirmed" should be changed to "confirmed". Omni Flames (talk) 09:11, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

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.

Procedure to request a filter shutdown

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.

---

Is this noticeboard the correct forum to request the removal of a filter? If so, I'd like to initiate the process for Filter 731. This filter is now private, but, when I last looked at it, it just did an unsophisticated text search on "Jew" and various similar letter combinations. The main target of the filter (Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Ref Desk Antisemitic Troll) has no problems in getting round it, so its only effect at present is to give us a Scunthorpe problem for people who want to ask questions about, for example, "jewellery", on the Reference Desks. If this is the incorrect venue for this request, please let me know. Tevildo (talk) 16:57, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

• Linky, and yes, this would be the right place to ask about a shutdown.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:06, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

I've changed the filter to log-only due to the high number of false-positives. Nakon 18:44, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks very much. That should solve the immediate problem, I don't think any further action is required. Tevildo (talk) 18:55, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

I've disabled it. Those false positives could be fixed, but I think we'll still find the filter to be ineffective, just as we have with a newer filter created for the same purpose. Unfortunately this must be dealt by other means — MusikAnimal ^talk 15:43, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

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.

Special:AbuseFilter/126

126 (Youtube links) is currently not checking for the addition of YouTube links from IPs. Rich Farmbrough raised this question in the filter back in '15, and having tested adding !("confirmed" in user_groups) in my test filter and not having any false positives/explosions, might it be a good idea to add it to the filter? Could the use of a tag be helpful here too? -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 15:10, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Are YouTube links that much of a problem as to merit a tag? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:32, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't say they're that much of a problem, more that they are widespread enough to benefit from the use of a tag in these situations. Do you have an opinion on the inclusion of IPs in the filter? -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 15:39, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Seems like including anonymous editors in this filter is justified. Also wondering if MediaWiki:Abusefilter-youtubefilter-warning is still needed.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:47, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Changed :) do you mean if it's needed in general? -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 15:53, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Tagging looks like a good idea. Not sure about the target audience of warnings. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:05, 13 July 2016 (UTC).

Checking if the user is confirmed is definitely a good idea in my opinion. I don't know about the user_age < 600 though. That's 600 seconds. That means that a user only has to wait 10 minutes after joining and then they can bypass the filter. I think that line should be removed. Omni Flames (talk) 22:19, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Special:AbuseFilter/778

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.

---

New private disallowing filter, batch tested with no false positives (and 1x natural catch) - unlikely to have any false positives. I think it will need to be merged at some point. Email with any questions as always -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 20:43, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

@NeilN: I note you commented on a protection request against your talk page, were you wanting these edits? -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 20:54, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

@Samtar: Emailed you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:01, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

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.

A random thought about Filter 650

I wondered if Special:AbuseFilter/650 may benefit from a message to editors triggering it that informs them in a polite fashion on how to categorize pages. It has a decent rate of hits and a moderate amount of articles tagged by it don't get deleted.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:19, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I don't think something like that is possible with the abuse filter, however the notification could be delivered via a simple bot. Another possibility is using a custom warning which encourages editors to add categories to the new article. Omni Flames (talk) 22:51, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Also, on the topic of that filter, shouldn't old_size == 0 be used to identify new page creation, instead of article_articleid == 0? According to the documentation, the latter method is unreliable. Omni Flames (talk) 22:54, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

As far as I know, the "warn" setting can be used to message an user about a problem with their edits. Now much of the time this setting is used for "Hey, knock it off!" sort of warnings but the message is customizable.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:07, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I think it's OK if they don't know how to add categories. They're not super duper important, and the patrollers usually help out with adding them. Sending a message after the article is saved (when they can use HotCat) makes more sense, but again I think the wealth of links they get in the welcome template is enough to take in for a newbie — MusikAnimal ^talk 23:14, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Musik, I'll see if I can knock up a bot which could possibly leave these editors a short and polite message encouraging them to add a category to their new article (perhaps after a certain period of time has passed?) -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 14:15, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I think tagging their article with {{uncategorized}} is enough. They will very likely see it. Even better is to add categories for them, that's the best way to learn I think. E.g. as a new user, even if I learn how to add categories, how am I meant to know I should add "Living persons" to my BLP, or "1969 births"? They doubtfully would guess that, and if prompted to add categories would probably end up adding something insufficient like Category:Musicians, which ultimately will get changed anyway. Instead add the category Category:Musicians from New York City for them and then they'll better understand it. I don't agree with saying "hey there's this thing you're not doing that isn't really important but here's how's to do it anyway" — MusikAnimal ^talk 15:42, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

New tool for WP:EF/FP

Hi all, me yet again - I've ungraciously butchered Enterprisey's orcp-helper into a tool to help EFM's, administrators and other editors respond to false positive reports. You can read more here - please feel free to let me know of any features you'd like adding -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 19:05, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Special:AbuseFilter/781

New private disallow, pretty straightforward - email with any questions -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 06:06, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Special:AbuseFilter/782

This filter was enabled with disallow for a few moments for testing, I was manually supervising and no editors were impacted. It is back to log only now. This is related to an active WP:AN thread. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:54, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

This is currently being discussed here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Activating_Abuse_Filter. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:40, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

• This filter has been enabled in disallow mode by @Ymblanter: in response to the discussion above. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:48, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Following the discussion at WP:AN/CXT the disallow has been reduced. I'm going to be offline for a bit - logs are looking good following the last change - but feel free to revert if any harm has been caused. — xaosflux ^Talk 05:04, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Special:AbuseFilter/785

New disallowing per Special:Permalink/732734116#Template doc pages. Was tested on my private filter — MusikAnimal ^talk 22:40, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Adding the ability for EFMs to access the edit interface at Special:Tags

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.

---

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T141847

Discussion (managechangetags)

Hi all, given the fact the abusefilter group already has the ability to modify tags applied to an edit, I think it may be worth allowing them access to the edit interface at Special:Tags. It would be helpful for the correct creation of tags to apply to edit filters, and being able to assist in the removal of tags no longer required. I understand this will involve a request over at Phabricator once the idea hopefully gains consensus - is there anywhere else this discussion should be linked? -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 10:00, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:53, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Jo-Jo, notified :) -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 11:03, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd support this ability being added to the group. Editing the tags interface is relevant to the work done by EFMs, and it can't really do a lot of damage if something goes wrong, less than the damage that could be done via an edit filter anyway. Adding this right would be especially helpful for managers like Samtar who don't have the sysop bit. Omni Flames (talk) 11:28, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

@Samtar: the change to make on the back end would be to add the permissions (managechangetags) (and possibly (deletechangetags) ) to our access group abusefilter. Do you see a reason they would need delete or leave that for admins? — xaosflux ^Talk 11:52, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: I personally don't see any major reasons to add deletechangetags and would be happy leaving that to the admins -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 11:55, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Poll (managechangetags)

• Support Non-admin users in the abusefilter group are already highly trusted, technical editors - and this is directly related to filter management. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:15, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
• Support as nom -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 12:19, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
• Support, but we shouldn't be adding tags willy-nilly. Give it thought and evaluate if a tag is truly helpful to the broader editing community and if the edits are widespread enough. More often than not the filter logs alone will provide sufficient tracking for those interested — MusikAnimal ^talk 15:47, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
• Support for managechangetags per my comments above. I don't really see any need for deletechangetags though. Omni Flames (talk) 22:51, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
• Support this useful permission, being given to already-trusted users. Alsee (talk) 00:14, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
• Support Could be used by the EFMs. — Music1201 ^talk 00:28, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
• Support, sounds reasonable. Nakon 01:09, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
• Support on the understanding that people given this right are unlikely to be the sort to "add tags willy-nilly". Thryduulf (talk) 14:14, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Close?

11 days have passed, not sure what kind of time period this should be left open for but I imagine most editors with an opinion have likely given them -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 07:26, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

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.

Thank you Jo-Jo - for interested editors, I have opened ticket T141847 requesting the permission be added to the group -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 07:56, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Wow that went really well for what was technically an administrator un-bundling change - <sarcasm>don't tell those folks over at Wikipedia:RFA reform</sarcasm>. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:49, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Special:AbuseFilter/779

This filter is now enabled in disallow mode. BethNaught (talk) 21:16, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Special:AbuseFilter/790

Disallowing. Has been tested for some time — MusikAnimal ^talk 21:18, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Add tag to 579

I've been looking at this edit filter request - given the fact we understandably don't want to dedicate a tag to a specific LTA, I propose the use of a tag (Possible sockpuppet account) on 579, enabling non-EFM editors to patrol Special:log/newusers for these disruptive accounts -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 16:35, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Courtesy ping to MusikAnimal & ThePlatypusofDoom as they were involved with the above thread -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 16:39, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Do we have information on whether the sockmaster(s) concerned would try to evade an edit filter if they knew which edits tripped it? Not all sockmasters can hide their patterns (offsite experience with Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nate Speed) but some can and will do. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:41, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I imagine that a degree of evasion will occur, yes - though I wouldn't imagine its anything more than the evasion which already takes place. I guess it boils down to speed of location/block vs slightly less filter tweaks needed? -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 16:48, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

And to the behaviour of the sockmaster, that is why I asked the question about his patterns. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:52, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Special:AbuseFilter/784

Has been around for a little while tagging edits, now removed tag and set to disallow -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 13:21, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Special:AbuseFilter/792

Set to disallow, was thoroughly tested on my personal filter — MusikAnimal ^talk 19:52, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Edit Filter Permissions request for Omni Flames

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.

---

• Omni Flames (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)}

Okay, so I know that there aren't too many people working with edit filters these days, which is why I'd like to start helping out with them more and help to create new ones. I've been helping out around WP:EF/R quite a lot in the past 4 months or so, by suggesting filters and regexes for some of the requests there. This is probably the area I'd like to help out at most if I became an EFM, though I'd also like to assist in creating new filters and polishing up old ones. I can't claim to have a perfect knowledge of regexes and filter syntax, and I've certainly made mistakes with them in the past, but I think what's important is that I've learnt from those mistakes and that I overall have a fairly good knowledge of the abuse filter extension. Feel free to ask any questions if you want me to prove that.

Also, I understand that the assignment of the EFM user right to non-admins is highly restricted. That's why I'll try to be as cautious as possible when starting out, and be sure to ask someone more experienced if I have any questions. Thanks for your consideration. Omni Flames (talk) 09:15, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support: Omni Flames has proven their knowledge of regex and filter structures, both on WP:EF/R and through personal discussions with them. Some of their work can be see at this filter request. Omni also runs a bot (User:OmniBot), which again shows their technical aptitude. We may not have a massive call for new EFMs at the moment, but new eyes are always appreciated -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 09:22, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
• Hello Omni Flames. Could you just give an example of a filter that needs brushing up, and how you'd do it? Also, what are your best contributions to WP:EF/R? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:25, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Hey zzuuzz. The Harambe vandalism filter comes to mind. Though I don't actually have access to the filter because it's not public, I have a fair idea of what it's like because I was the one who originally suggested it and because I saw it before it was made private. The filter has been missing a lot of vandalism lately (see AN discusion), one of which I reported to Samtar just a couple of hours ago. I'd like to take a look at this filter and see what I can do to fix it up a bit and stop this vandalism from getting through. However, perhaps that's not the best example as I can't really tell you exactly what I'd change. From looking around I found another filter that needs fixing up: filter 167. It's supposed to catch botched articles for creation submissions, but from what I can tell it only catches those in the Wikipedia talk namespace. Many AFC submissions these days also come from Wikipedia:Articles for Creation/name of article, and so I'd update this filter to include the "Wikipedia:" namespace as well (by changing 5 on the first line to (5|4)). I could be missing something, but I believe that this would make the filter more effective.
    • In defense of 784 (which is now fixed), the above slipped through whilst the filter had been set to log-only to test some changes -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 13:58, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• As for my best contributions to WP:EF/R, well, I've made a lot of suggestions there. Looking through the archives and the current page,this request, this request and this request are probably the best examples of my work to the page. In all of those cases, I either suggested or worked on the syntax of a requested filter there, and it led to the creation of a properly functioning abuse filter. Hopefully that answers your questions. Omni Flames (talk) 12:38, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose Sorry... Omni Flames is a superb Wikipedian in general, but even looking at the examples they've provided you'll see the suggested filter changes are full of syntax errors and careless mistakes – including the one above to filter 167 with (5|4), which presents the exact same problem we just discussed. It is clear he has been working toward attaining this right, which perhaps explains how he overlooked the sensitivity of disclosing private filter details on-wiki (this is why we have a mailing list), and evaluating whether a filter was appropriate in the first place. Despite this, I find the desire to help out commendable, but I don't find their prior work to be that exemplary, nor do I see a clear and demonstrated need given we don't have much of a backlog to deal with — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:26, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per MusikAnimal, all of whose points are pertinent. BethNaught (talk) 20:37, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

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.

New tag

not sure where to put this request, so basically, I would suggest a new tag ability for the filters, that it would institute a medium between disallow and warn, basically "putting on hold" or something to that matter, that puts it in as if it were a pending change, so that the person may make the change, but it wont go live until someone who has pending changes rights accepts it. Iazyges (talk) 21:08, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

@Iazyges: I've moved this to our noticeboard, as this is a suggestion of a change to the AbuseFilter functionality. Personally, I like the idea but I'm not sure how feasible it is without drastic changes to the extension -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 04:39, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

@Samtar: thank you for the move, what about it would be hard? I must admit I'm new to edit filters.

The technical implementation would be the difficult bit I'd imagine. This would all need to be coded into the extension. Omni Flames (talk) 12:11, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

@Omni Flames:, Sorry for late reply, would it not be feasible to use the review code and adapt it? I admit my lack of knowledge with the underlying code. Iazyges (talk) 20:33, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

It could actually be simple. All that would need to happen is that it applies an action that is equivalent to the unaccept revision available on pending changes protected pages for reviewers. The difficulty I see with that however, is allowing the unreviewed status to be applied to a revision on a page without pending pages protection. -- The Voidwalker ^Whispers 02:02, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Ref Desk Troll

I've created a new disallow filter 795 to counter the current assault on the Ref Desk, by a vandal whose methods suggest he may be using a degree of automation. I intend this to be temporary. Dragons flight (talk) 15:58, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

The troll appears to be adapting. clpo13_(talk) 23:44, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Sigh, I'm also testing 796 as this guy doesn't want to quit... Dragons flight (talk) 08:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Bich

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 keep seeing, at WP:UAA/BOT, the word "bich" being matched. A lot of the usernames seem to be Vietnamese names. Is it possible for the "bich" filter to have a note saying that Bich is a Vietnamese name (like how the "porn" edit filter has the Thai name note and the "shit" one has the Indian one)? Thanks. Linguist 111 ^Moi? Moi. 10:27, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

@Linguist111: We don't run that bot or any filters which relate to it - you may wish to make your request at User talk:DeltaQuad/UAA/Blacklist instead -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 10:31, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

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.

Special:AbuseFilter/793

New disallowing filter, BN's creation - tested on AF/2 and then moved to 793 once some confirmed there's good hits and no FPs. Email myself or BN with questions, and there's probably a couple more which could be added to the filter -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 14:12, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Significantly updated and tested for a day or so - disallowing again -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 14:25, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Odd false positive - Special:AbuseFilter/784

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.

---

Hi all, I'm struggling to see why Special:AbuseFilter/784 prevented this edit as it's not only the wrong namespace, but user_groups is definately Confirmed+ - when batch testing against the page, the edit doesn't show up -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 07:34, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

This is definitely a problem: article_namespace == 0|10 -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 07:43, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

@Samtar: I've made the change.[19] Feel free to set to disallow when you're happy. Hopefully you can understand the problem this caused. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:02, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

@Zzuuzz: I personally don't see the problem with == 0|10 (is equal to 0 OR 10), which was batch tested before using - it's very possible I'm just being a little dim, so any explanation would be greatly appreciated :) -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 08:36, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

(is equal to 0 OR 10) is the problem... it's like saying if namespace=0, or true, then disallow. It's not the same as (is equal to (0 OR 10)) 10 is a separate statement and will always evaluate to true. I'd have to do some checks to see how exactly it worked in this case, because random OR statements really do my head in, but I can be fairly sure that another statement was started at the (unenclosed) pipe|. Generally such things require multiple if statements, or some kind of bracketing. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:50, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Ah! So == (0|10) may have worked better? -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 09:00, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Again I'd have to check, but in this implementation I'm not so sure. I suspect it will evaluate 0 OR 10, which might be 10? However if treated as regex, as I've done, something similar can be done. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:18, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I'll defer to experience on this one :) - set to disallow after significant non-false positive hits -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 10:58, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, as with most programming languages you would write A == B or A == C, not A == B or C. Sam's false positive is slightly my fault... I added another clause to prevent false positives, and also removed the short-circuiting since it is no longer needed as of MediaWiki 1.27 (more at mw:Extension:AbuseFilter/Conditions). What happened here was by removing short-circuiting, it allowed this new false positive to happen. E.g. if you envision the 1 here as being the bug (if namespace=0, or true): we have 0 & 0 | 1 which results in true, before we had 0 & (0 | 1) which is false. I admit I should have noticed the improper checking of the namespace, and I also batch tested with no false positives (not many people use the word Harambe :). So this good news... removing short-circuiting revealed the bug, and as far as I can tell, Samtar's edit was the only false positive – the irony! =P — MusikAnimal ^talk 14:01, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

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.

Indian astrologer/prostitute filter

I have read somewhere on en-WP that an edit filter blocking certain tph-numbers has been created, so I thought I'd tell you that they have now started to circumvent it by replacing the initial zeros with capital letter "O"-s: "love back OO8890388811 specialist astrologer in kuwait gujarat" (the difference between the capital letter "O" and zero can be clearly seen in the typeface I use on my screen, but might not be obvious in other typefaces...). See [20] and [21]. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 18:21, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm on my phone, so I can't go check but I believe MER-C has already updated the filter to capture this -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 21:46, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

The edits I linked to were made just minutes before I posted here, and they obviously had no problems making them. Maybe it's a new phone number? - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 21:49, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a new number. Added to the filter. MER-C 00:31, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

False negative on edit filter 766

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.

---

Hi, I noticed an edit that Special:AbuseFilter/766, the alt-right tagging filter, should've tagged but didn't. I think it's because of the regex not accepting spaces. Maybe it should be something like (\(|&#40;){3}[A-Za-z ]+(\)|&#41;){3} — Strongjam (talk) 17:51, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

@Strongjam:  Done Thank you for pointing this out to us, I opted to check .* instead of [A-Za-z ]+ to be a bit more emcompassing. Batch tested to ensure a hit against spaced additions -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 11:26, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

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.

Special:AbuseFilter/642

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.

---

Could someone please add template:db-no permission-OTRS to the list of things that can only be added by OTRS agents? Also, can I ask why that filter is only set to warn and not to warn/disallow? I know that historically not everyone with permissions access was marked with the OTRS-member tag but that has pretty much been fixed to my knowledge. If you want to add the ability for admins to use those tags that would probably be fine. Otherwise, people should be warned that those tags are only for OTRS members, and then they should be disallowed with a message pointing to WP:OTRS/N. --Majora (talk) 01:45, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

@Majora: I've added the {{Db-no permission-OTRS}} template to the filter. The lack of disallow may be due to the fact the filter is public and targets good faith additions of these templates? The filter is very easy to get around, so disallowing would likely result in bad-faith attempts to subvert the filter and then such additions wouldn't be logged at all - just my 2¢ -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 09:01, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

@Samtar: Does the filter code account for subst:? That template is supposed to be substituted. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:08, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Hi Jo-Jo, yes it accounts for both subst:'d additions and unsubst:'d additions -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 09:09, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Samtar. Also thanks for the explanation at to why this is just set to warn. Better to catch people than have them trying to get around the filter. Appreciate it. --Majora (talk) 19:29, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

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.

Request for permission: User:Kaldari

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'm a long time community member (since 2004) and MediaWiki developer. I've done minor development on both the AbuseFilter and AntiSpoof extensions and have a pretty good understanding of how to write filters (and regular expressions). I already have the edit filter right under my staff account (Ryan Kaldari (WMF)), but would also like to be able to work on filters as a volunteer. Kaldari (talk) 20:51, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Yep: no big deal seeing as you already have the right on your staff account, and it's pretty clear you know what you're doing -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 21:43, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: Our granting guidelines call for "a discussion will be held before a decision is made" - these requests are normally closed within a week. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:03, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support Full disclosure, I work with Kaldari, but I can certainly vouch without bias that he is knowledgeable with the extension, and I've found myself asking him questions about implementation before — MusikAnimal ^talk 03:28, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

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.

Special:AbuseFilter/684

Filter set to disallow edits per temporary disruption to WP:AN. Watching logs and will disable once it settles down -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 12:46, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Special:AbuseFilter/781

Pretty basic disallowing after batch test, will try to get some patterns down as the message changes. I don't think this will cause any FPs but I'm watching the log. Please feel free to email me with any questions -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 15:12, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Special:AbuseFilter/799

New throttling disallow filter targeting the Ref Desk Nazi troll. Perhaps a futile gesture, but I felt inclined to give it a try. Expected to be temporary. Dragons flight (talk) 21:16, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Special:AbuseFilter/800

New disallowing filter, see above -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 15:39, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Filter 320 disabled (important)

I've emergency-disabled Special:AbuseFilter/320 ("Your mom" Vandalism) which is generating a huge number of hits and FP reports. There's been no changes to the filter in the last two months, so this needs a further look. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:50, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

(article_namespace == 0 | (article_namespace == 3) & is odd code, why is the first parenthese unmatched? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:22, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

(I don't pretend to understand edit filter code, but given that | is an OR and & an AND operator, it might be that the unmatched bracket causes the filter to ignore conditions past the |. The bracket is matched only much later after all the criteria) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:28, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Unpacking this, it appears to come down to testing the equivalent of "true | false & false". It appears that in the past this was evaluated as "(true | false) & false" but this seems to have very recently changed to be evaluated as "true | (false & false)". I am guessing there was an update to Mediawiki at the time the filter broke. The immediate fix is to adjust the parentheses to explicitly force the correct ordering. However, the same issue could affect other filters. Dragons flight (talk) 19:35, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I made the change and re-enabled the filter. Dragons flight (talk) 19:43, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks both. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:46, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to guess this is a result of when short-circuiting was introduced in MediaWiki 1.27, which was deployed in June. Has it been going on for that long? — MusikAnimal ^talk 23:43, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

No, it definitely began at 17:30 on 19 October 2016 (UTC). I can only assume it was some software update, and related to the unusual/incorrect bracketing. I haven't noticed any other filters being affected. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:50, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Special:AbuseFilter/799

I've set filter 799 (authored by Dragons flight) to disallow per an email to the mailing list. It has had no false positives and I'll keep an eye on the log -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 14:48, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

2016 Community Wishlist Survey - AbuseFilter

I've submitted a proposal for improving the AbuseFilter extension to the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey. Please join the discussion there to help refine the proposal and identify important issues regarding the tool. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 14:15, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

BRFA of interest

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DatBot 3 might be of interest to edit filter helpers/managers. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 15:47, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Administrators - Please add any filters to their respective lines in User:DatBot/filters.js.

Non-administrator EFMs (yes, all six[?] of you) - Please email me any ones you would like to add. You do not have to tell me any details about the filter as I respect your ideas. Tell me the filter number and whether to put it in immediate, vandalism, or UAAreport. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 17:27, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Deferred Changes RfC - implications for edit filters

FYI, the Deferred changes RfC has been closed with a consensus to implement the proposal, including the deferring of edits that match some edit filters. Sam Walton (talk) 23:43, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Filter 773

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.

---

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive935 § Users adding references to Paolo Rampini die cast books

Spamming continues, with a name variant to evade the filter: 109.112.131.182 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 31.157.59.23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log).

Can someone help with Special:AbuseFilter/773 please? Needs to be ra(n)|(m)pini but with paolo either before or after. My RegEx-fu is not strong enough to do this confidently without breaking shit. Thanks. Guy (Help!) 22:20, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Moved from my test filter to Special:AbuseFilter/800. I'll take a look when I get a second from work! -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 09:46, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Batch test against Dugu Miniautotoys shows it'd hit the above IP contribs - @JzG: are you wanting this to disallow the additions or just log them? -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 09:53, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Disallow, please. This spammer has become boring. Guy (Help!) 11:47, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Should IPs which persistently trip the filter be blocked? User:Mr.Z-bot/filters.js is a function that reports users tripping the specified filters to WP:AIV, but the bot seems to be offline recently. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:51, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but the spammer is IP-hopping. 93.68.199.100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) today, which I think should have triggered the filter? Guy (Help!) 15:33, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

@JzG: it disallowed logged a couple from that IP - I'll switch it to disallow -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 15:35, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Great, thanks. Yes, I know, I could have done that myself, but edit filters can cause drama and am not that good with regex. Guy (Help!) 18:37, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

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.