This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
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)
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).
There are currently six WMF staff accounts with EF.
Note one also has a non-staff account that is also EF
And one ex-WMF staffer has an EF account
All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough,
03:29, 5 September 2015 (UTC).
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)
{{Subst:Ds/alert|ggtf}}--~~~~
" - the length of the substituted template and sig can straddle the 1700 mark depending on the subject and sig.)added lines irlike {{[ _]*subst[ _]*:[ _]*((arbcom|ds/|Uw-)?-alert|Uw-sanctions|T:DSA)[ _]*\|
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).
@ Petrb: This filter tags Huggle edits with the Huggle tag (strictly the "huggle" tag).
Three questions:
All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough,
22:48, 10 September 2015 (UTC).
summary rlike "^.*\(\[\[WP:HG\|HG\]\]\).*$"
summary rlike "\(\[\[WP:HG\|HG\]\]\)"
summary contains "([[WP:HG|HG]])"
Using the term to mean over 20 changes to an edit filter in 2015, and excluding those no longer EFMs there are just 10:
Apologies for any undesired pings.
All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough,
20:08, 11 September 2015 (UTC).
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
( ←) 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)
Can someone take a look at this AN thread with an eye towards a possible filter? BMK ( talk) 16:00, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
(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)
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).
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
There are currently 44 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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
edit_diff
? —
xaosflux
Talk
03:50, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
! "-- Derived from Template:Ds/alert --" in removed_lines & ! "Z33" in removed_lines & ! "-- Derived from Template:Ds/alert --" in old_wikitext & ! "Z33" in old_wikitext
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)
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).
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)
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)
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)
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://en.wikipedia.org/?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).
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)
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)
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. —
SMALL
JIM
12:30, 15 March 2016 (UTC)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? —
SMALL
JIM
20:09, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
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)
I've just enabled this in deny mode to catch an outburst of jpg vandalism. — SMALL JIM 22:53, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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, ⁓ Hello 71 16:15, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
article_namespace
) early in the filter if you don't need everything. —
xaosflux
Talk
11:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
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)
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 isnotdave ( talk/ contribs) 19:30, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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, Reso lute 14:03, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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 ( 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). — SMALL JIM 10:37, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
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)
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.
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)
Request withdrawn — Preceding unsigned comment added by Music1201 ( talk • contribs)
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)
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)
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)
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'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)
!("confirmed" in user_groups) & ( article_namespace == 0 & ( crosses :="^(\w+( \w+(✝|✝|\+))*)?"; added_lines irlike crosses & ( !(removed_lines irlike crosses) ) ) )
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 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)
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)
possible cause of death vandalism
?
Omni Flames (
talk)
22:40, 29 June 2016 (UTC)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)
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)
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)
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)
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)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)
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)
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)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)
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)
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)
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)
New private disallow, pretty straightforward - email with any questions -- samtar talk or stalk 06:06, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
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)
New disallowing per Special:Permalink/732734116#Template doc pages. Was tested on my private filter — MusikAnimal talk 22:40, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This section in a nutshell: Proposal to add the (managechangetags) permission to the abusefilter group. |
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)
(managechangetags)
((deletechangetags)
abusefilter
. Do you see a reason they would need delete or leave that for admins? —
xaosflux
Talk
11:52, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
deletechangetags
and would be happy leaving that to the admins --
samtar
talk or
stalk
11:55, 22 July 2016 (UTC)managechangetags
per my comments above. I don't really see any need for deletechangetags
though.
Omni Flames (
talk)
22:51, 22 July 2016 (UTC)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)
This filter is now enabled in disallow mode. BethNaught ( talk) 21:16, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Disallowing. Has been tested for some time — MusikAnimal talk 21:18, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
Set to disallow, was thoroughly tested on my personal filter — MusikAnimal talk 19:52, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
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.
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)
clear and demonstrated needgiven we don't have much of a backlog to deal with — MusikAnimal talk 16:26, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
== 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)
== (0|10)
may have worked better? --
samtar
talk or
stalk
09:00, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
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)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)
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 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 (\(|(){3}[A-Za-z ]+(\)|)){3} — Strongjam ( talk) 17:51, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
.*
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 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)
subst:
? That template is supposed to be substituted.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk,
contributions)
09:08, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
New disallowing filter, see above -- samtar talk or stalk 15:39, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
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'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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
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)
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).
There are currently six WMF staff accounts with EF.
Note one also has a non-staff account that is also EF
And one ex-WMF staffer has an EF account
All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough,
03:29, 5 September 2015 (UTC).
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)
{{Subst:Ds/alert|ggtf}}--~~~~
" - the length of the substituted template and sig can straddle the 1700 mark depending on the subject and sig.)added lines irlike {{[ _]*subst[ _]*:[ _]*((arbcom|ds/|Uw-)?-alert|Uw-sanctions|T:DSA)[ _]*\|
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).
@ Petrb: This filter tags Huggle edits with the Huggle tag (strictly the "huggle" tag).
Three questions:
All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough,
22:48, 10 September 2015 (UTC).
summary rlike "^.*\(\[\[WP:HG\|HG\]\]\).*$"
summary rlike "\(\[\[WP:HG\|HG\]\]\)"
summary contains "([[WP:HG|HG]])"
Using the term to mean over 20 changes to an edit filter in 2015, and excluding those no longer EFMs there are just 10:
Apologies for any undesired pings.
All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough,
20:08, 11 September 2015 (UTC).
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
( ←) 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)
Can someone take a look at this AN thread with an eye towards a possible filter? BMK ( talk) 16:00, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
(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)
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).
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
There are currently 44 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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
edit_diff
? —
xaosflux
Talk
03:50, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
! "-- Derived from Template:Ds/alert --" in removed_lines & ! "Z33" in removed_lines & ! "-- Derived from Template:Ds/alert --" in old_wikitext & ! "Z33" in old_wikitext
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)
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).
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)
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)
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)
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://en.wikipedia.org/?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).
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)
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)
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. —
SMALL
JIM
12:30, 15 March 2016 (UTC)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? —
SMALL
JIM
20:09, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
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)
I've just enabled this in deny mode to catch an outburst of jpg vandalism. — SMALL JIM 22:53, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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, ⁓ Hello 71 16:15, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
article_namespace
) early in the filter if you don't need everything. —
xaosflux
Talk
11:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
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)
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 isnotdave ( talk/ contribs) 19:30, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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, Reso lute 14:03, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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 ( 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). — SMALL JIM 10:37, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
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)
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.
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)
Request withdrawn — Preceding unsigned comment added by Music1201 ( talk • contribs)
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)
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)
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)
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'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)
!("confirmed" in user_groups) & ( article_namespace == 0 & ( crosses :="^(\w+( \w+(✝|✝|\+))*)?"; added_lines irlike crosses & ( !(removed_lines irlike crosses) ) ) )
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 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)
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)
possible cause of death vandalism
?
Omni Flames (
talk)
22:40, 29 June 2016 (UTC)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)
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)
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)
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)
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)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)
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)
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)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)
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)
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)
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)
New private disallow, pretty straightforward - email with any questions -- samtar talk or stalk 06:06, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
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)
New disallowing per Special:Permalink/732734116#Template doc pages. Was tested on my private filter — MusikAnimal talk 22:40, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This section in a nutshell: Proposal to add the (managechangetags) permission to the abusefilter group. |
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)
(managechangetags)
((deletechangetags)
abusefilter
. Do you see a reason they would need delete or leave that for admins? —
xaosflux
Talk
11:52, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
deletechangetags
and would be happy leaving that to the admins --
samtar
talk or
stalk
11:55, 22 July 2016 (UTC)managechangetags
per my comments above. I don't really see any need for deletechangetags
though.
Omni Flames (
talk)
22:51, 22 July 2016 (UTC)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)
This filter is now enabled in disallow mode. BethNaught ( talk) 21:16, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Disallowing. Has been tested for some time — MusikAnimal talk 21:18, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
Set to disallow, was thoroughly tested on my personal filter — MusikAnimal talk 19:52, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
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.
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)
clear and demonstrated needgiven we don't have much of a backlog to deal with — MusikAnimal talk 16:26, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
== 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)
== (0|10)
may have worked better? --
samtar
talk or
stalk
09:00, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
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)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)
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 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 (\(|(){3}[A-Za-z ]+(\)|)){3} — Strongjam ( talk) 17:51, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
.*
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 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)
subst:
? That template is supposed to be substituted.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk,
contributions)
09:08, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
New disallowing filter, see above -- samtar talk or stalk 15:39, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
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'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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)