![]() | 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 talk page. |
Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 |
Elmira High School, Elmira, OR. Notable Alumni: Paddi Moyer, artisan, has several websites. She is legitimate. There’s no possible way to add her name and it is impossible to contact any of you. 50.45.245.19 ( talk) 09:45, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
No mention of the new guitar player Caleb Tucker 2600:1700:A170:3AF0:B0AE:7D02:4851:7C87 ( talk) 23:38, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
As can be seen from the last 400 edits at
Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested, the bot has, since 9 September 2023, been archiving everything into
Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested/Archive 4 - this appears to be because of
<this change> by @
EEng.
Should something be done about that? There are 21 archives.
Note that I'm posting this here because the talk page for /Requests redirects here. –
2804:F14:809E:DF01:1968:B0BD:7883:4C14 (
talk)
22:41, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
|numberstart=
set to 4 (it doesn't use a counter system like {{
User:MiszaBot/config}}, rather I think it figures out where it should archive every time), and since the archive size was increased enough to allow it to archive to the 4th archive, it did. Probably worth moving everything that ended up in 4 to 21 or 22 and upping numberstart.
Aidan9382 (
talk)
06:53, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Unless I'm missing something, it seems we're currently over the 1k condition limit ( graph)? Though it doesn't seem any edits have been tagged as breaching the limot here ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 10:12, 2 April 2024 (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.
1AmNobody24 ( t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created ( xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ( blocks · rights · moves) · rfar · spi · cci)
The earliest closure has started. ( refresh)
For those of you that do not know him, 1AmNobody24 has been quite an active patroller of EFFPR spanning a little more than 700 edits in the past few months, and he would be a great asset to the edit filter team in order to review false positives that involve private filters, and to assist with improving and creating private filters. Some of his suggestions include Wikipedia:Edit filter noticeboard/Archive 12#Filter 1112, and Special:Permalink/1211462999#Improving Filter 1045.
Outside of edit filters, he does a great job of reverting obvious vandalism and spam, has decent UAA, AFC, CSD and SPI logs, fixes references (including but not limited to bare URLs, CS1 errors), adds wikilinks, and has signed the confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information per this diff on Meta.
Thank you for your consideration in whether or not you want to support him. Codename Noreste 🤔 talk 17:00, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of this nomination here: I accept this nomination. Nobody ( talk) 17:16, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Examplevs "Example") 0x Deadbeef→∞ ( talk to me) 02:08, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Their are a few promotional accounts whose names have 'corporations' in them instead of simply 'corporation' which is currently filtered out. I suggest that we should change the syntax to also log these accounts. We could change the related part of the regex to CORP(?:S?.?$|ORATE|ORATIONS?\b)
. –
PharyngealImplosive7
(talk)
00:29, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
I came across filter 1162, and I am wondering why there are no actions taken when the filter is triggered. Seems like this should be tagged at the very least. GrayStorm( Talk| Contributions) 22:54, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Has anyone else had any problems with searching in filter code (as in, ctrl + f and no search box appearing)? I've tried clicking inside the code then pressing Ctrl+F, tried looking at different filters, tried restarting my computer, nothing. I don't think it's a script issue either, since I tried enabling safemode as well, and that didn't fix it, nor did trying to open the filter in an incognito window. Anyone know if maybe a recent update removed the ability or broke it? EggRoll97 ( talk) 05:04, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
The resource from “
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/extensions/CodeEditor/modules/ace/ext-searchbox.js” was blocked due to MIME type (“text/plain”) mismatch (X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff)
. But oddly it does work on JavaScript pages.
Suffusion of Yellow (
talk)
19:25, 4 April 2024 (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 all. I am presenting myself here to the community today to request that I be granted edit filter manager rights as a non-administrator. I've thought about this for a bit, and it's 0xDeadbeef's response to my request for a bit of advice and his encouragement of boldness here that has pushed me to bite the metaphorical "bullet", so to speak, and write this up. (As a side note, I've hovered over the publish changes button now for about an hour, uncertain if everything is perfect yet.)
Edit filter managers need demonstrated competency with the edit filter to be considered, as well as being trusted by the community to safely utilize the edit filter. As for trust, it's largely a factor that differs by person, though I of course will present that I have been an edit filter helper handling private filters for just over four months now without spilling the beans, and have signed the confidentiality agreement for non-public information (see m:Special:Diff/20180422). For technical competency, I have attached a few links below for both public and private filter changes I have requested. I've attempted to summarize the private filter changes as best I can without compromising private filter integrity.
Public filter changes:
Direct proposal for edits to a filter, implemented with modifications
Private filter changes:
A filter concern about problems with excessive matching
Some suggested improvements to an existing filter of simple changes
General changes to a filter to avoid false positives from it on innocent edits
Further, I have also passed by more than a few false positives reports that had small changes proposed to the filters that just needed an EFM to make them. This is something I would plan to work on a lot if granted the userright. The EFM right would also allow me to use filters
filter 1 (public testing) and
filter 2 (private testing) which can be more efficient than
Special:AbuseFilter/test as it only tests the last 100 edits (though
User:Suffusion of Yellow/FilterDebugger works wonders). I plan to extensively test any edit filter changes I implement, and with new edit filters as applicable, enable on log-only until fine-tuning has kept the false positive count to a low and reasonable degree. I am aware of the confidentiality expectations applicable to the private filters, and am aware of the extensive damage that edit filters can cause if recklessly implemented. I thank you for your consideration, and am fully open to and will respond to any questions and queries as applicable.
EggRoll97 (
talk)
00:11, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Edit filter noticeboard/Archive 10#1157, I agree that I'm not sure if we have to keep 1157 ( hist · log) private, since the filter only logs non-admins/clerks/CheckUsers tagging sockpuppets. Any objections if this filter was to be marked as public to maintain consistency with 1170 ( hist · log)? Thanks. Codename Noreste 🤔 talk 23:38, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Just a random thought, but I randomly found MediaWiki:Abusefilter-autopromote-blocked, which I believe blocks you and disallows the edit. However, we don't use on this wiki at least because it is "unavailable" for some reason. Any idea why? – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 01:15, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
FWIW it looks like it's been used a few times in public filers:
Extended content
|
---|
MariaDB [enwiki_p]> select afh_filter,afh_timestamp from abuse_filter_history where afh_actions like "%blockautopromote%" order by afh_timestamp desc; +------------+----------------+ | afh_filter | afh_timestamp | +------------+----------------+ | 1028 | 20200212151256 | | 201 | 20120810005233 | | 201 | 20120810005150 | | 201 | 20110916071759 | | 201 | 20110827000025 | | 201 | 20110306091844 | | 201 | 20110306091603 | | 1 | 20091203195833 | | 1 | 20091203195531 | | 54 | 20090318191118 | | 54 | 20090318190355 | | 54 | 20090318190101 | | 54 | 20090318185315 | | 54 | 20090318183632 | | 54 | 20090318183119 | | 54 | 20090318175241 | | 1 | 20090318012627 | +------------+----------------+ 17 rows in set (0.044 sec) |
The 2020 use was definitely a mis-click. I don't know how to search the private filter history short of sceen-scraping Special:AbuseFilter/history. Suffusion of Yellow ( talk) 00:31, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
&wpSearchFilter=58
part of the link. –
2804:F1...17:B3C2 (
talk)
02:01, 6 April 2024 (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.
Historically, EFH has been considered a relatively high trust role. I appreciate opinions on this can vary, and so the "need" to grant has been decided by precedence at this board, and evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Since we do not evaluate EFH discussions against a set criteria (like we do TE in Special:Permalink/1215492787, for example), participation is quite important.
Since many editors in the edit-filter community aren't around every day, to maximise participation, I'd like to suggest we extend the time for EFH discussions to the standard 7 days. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 12:18, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
we should really be hearing from the nominees themselves in these discussions. 0x Deadbeef→∞ ( talk to me) 14:55, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
it's 0xDeadbeef's response to my request for a bit of advice and his encouragement of boldness here that has pushed me to bite the metaphorical "bullet". Codename Noreste 🤔 talk 00:41, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Would it be possible to add a check for {{pagelinks|Example Article Name}}
to
1291 (
hist ·
log)? This would allow it to catch edits like
Special:Diff/1217679181 (where one instance of Example Article Name
still needs replacing), in addition to edits like
Special:AbuseLog/37383189. Pinging
DannyS712 as the filter’s creator.
All the best. — a smart kitten[ meow 18:01, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
Please check out User:Suffusion of Yellow/Commonly reverted words and phrases. Still working out the details, but likely any drive-by vandalism "worth" filtering will be there. Let me know what needs explaining. Suffusion of Yellow ( talk) 23:19, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Filter 1301 ( hist · log) has been recently created by an admin to prevent users from editing other users' committed identity templates on user pages, but I noticed some possible issues:
1. The !"sysop" in global_user_groups
condition should either be changed to !("steward" in global_user_groups)
or removed; the former global group doesn't actually exist at all.
2. The generic disallow message should either be changed or removed, since it can be bitey to newer users and irritating to experienced users.
Any opinions or suggestions? Thank you. Codename Noreste 🤔 𝙇𝙖 𝙎𝙪𝙢𝙖 02:08, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
/* ... */
and put it at something like
User:Aditya-an11/key.js. There are also several BEANSy ways in which this filter could be exploited by vandals. Again, I'll email you if you're curious.
Suffusion of Yellow (
talk)
04:19, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
steward
is the appropriate group, I'll update the filter. As far as the message goes, this filter should almost never match, but I'm open to suggestions. Also, if the default disallow message is considered bitey for reasons (beyond it being non-specific), we should discuss making it less bitey under a new topic.
Daniel Quinlan (
talk)
04:02, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
{{
committed identity|Zzuuzz is a total ...}}
Yeah, we could tweak the regex so that they can only talk about how much
DEADBEEF 15 A B00BFACE
FBDB, but is it worth the trouble? I've already though up about four ways to bypass this filter (again, emailed DQ, some of them are sort of relevant to other filters).
Suffusion of Yellow (
talk)
18:03, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
See this filter log, and this is something that I've seen before. Members or coordinators of the education program getting caught up in filters is probably one of the worst possible false positives and should be addressed immediately. Taking Out The Trash ( talk) 17:38, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Standard notification. Split out of 260 ( hist · log), 384 ( hist · log), and 614 ( hist · log), with a handful of additions. No FPs in the few dozen "new" matches. I'm not going to add this to Template:DatBot filters. In fact, that was part of the reason for the split. I doubt that users adding "lol" and "fdshksdjfhskdjdshfflshjfsldkhfdslkhsfd" are really going to put in the effort to work around the filters, so let's have a bit less clutter at WP:AIV/TB2. Suffusion of Yellow ( talk) 00:36, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
After noticing this, I suggest excluding undos and reverts from being logged onto the edit filter log by #867. Toadette ( Let's talk together!) 14:47, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
page_last_edit_age >= 86400
to exclude reverts of recent edits. But even that would exclude rapid edit warring to overturn an AFD.
Suffusion of Yellow (
talk)
20:59, 14 April 2024 (UTC)Until
WP:VPT#I don't understand these edit summaries (task:
T360164) is fixed, would it be worth it to change the pattern to match these cases too?
I'm not really sure how to check how often edits like that are happening and not getting logged by the filter, other than manually looking at
Special:RecentChanges (I also don't know what other filter this might be affecting), but I figured I'd point it out and ask anyways. –
143.208.239.226 (
talk)
02:32, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
(Topic name is a reference to one of my favorite error messages.)
The 15 April The Tech News weekly summary includes this blurb:
Volunteer developers are kindly asked to update the code of their tools and features to handle temporary accounts. Learn more
Of course, it's not just code that will need to be updated. A good number of edit filters are going to need to be updated. I don't think we necessarily want or need to update anything before it happens, but I'd suggest enumerating the variables and functions most likely to be affected and start building a list of filters expected to require updates.
(This may have been discussed before, but I didn't immediately find anything in the archive.) Daniel Quinlan ( talk) 23:57, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
ip_in_range()
, that will be bad, and some filters will have to just be disabled. But otherwise, so long as temp accounts are never autoconfirmed, and have an edit count and age that stays at zero or null, I don't think a huge number of filters will need updating. If user_age
and user_editcount
start incrementing, then we might want to check user_type
in some filters. I'd prefer to see how temp-account users act first. Will the vandals clear cookies after every edit? Or will most of them be too clueless? No way to know right now.
Suffusion of Yellow (
talk)
01:04, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
user_age
which is definitely used as an IP test.
Daniel Quinlan (
talk)
01:47, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
!("confirmed" in user_groups)
(as long as the temp accounts can't become confirmed or get other user permissions but that should happen anyways) would work quite well to prevent new users and the new temp account issues. –
PharyngealImplosive7
(talk)
02:39, 16 April 2024 (UTC)user_type
variable will probably work well for most simple filters.ip_in_range
and ip_in_ranges
, including some LTA filters, so hopefully
T357772 ends up in a good place.
Daniel Quinlan (
talk)
06:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)("Draftified article more than 180 days old")
Has some inevitable false positives due to AfDs, but people closing those know what they're doing. Otherwise there are a lot of draftifications of old articles by people who either don't realize how old the page is, don't know they're not supposed to do that, or both, and it would be nice if they could be warned as they do it, not later if someone happens to notice. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:43, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Not opposed to this, but both User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js or User:MPGuy2824/MoveToDraft.js just say something like this when a filter is tripped:
Could not move page: API error: abusefilter-warning Try again ?
Also MPGuy's version already gives this warning:
which is kind of hard to miss. Ideally, these script would be updated to show the parsed warning, though I'm not sure how much of an effect it will have. (Courtesy pings Evad37, MPGuy2824.) Suffusion of Yellow ( talk) 19:45, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure about this. I've manually analyzed the last 50 filter hits; and while 17 of those were true positives, there were 27 false positives (along with 6 cases in which it wasn't as clear to me). As far as I can see, the majority of the FPs came from round-robin page moves, draftification following WP:AFD/ WP:REFUND, and situations in which the page itself had existed for more than 180 days, but had only recently been moved to mainspace (and were therefore within the time limit for draftification):
Although I think a warning for true positives would be beneficial (for the same reason as Pppery), I'm wondering if there are any ways that the rate of FPs can be decreased before this filter is set as such. As things currently stand, I'm leaning oppose, due to the large proportion of warnings that would be given to editors encountering false positives. (Also,
Courtesy ping:
Bradv as the filter's author.)
All the best. — a smart kitten[ meow 16:39, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
moved_from_age > 15552000 & moved_to_last_edit > 604800
moved_to_last_edit_age
seems to be null
if the target page doesn't exist; see
testwiki:Special:AbuseLog/102036.
Suffusion of Yellow (
talk)
19:31, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
moved_from_age > 15552000 & (moved_to_last_edit > 604800 || moved_to_last_edit == null)
but I'm not too sure about this. –
PharyngealImplosive7
(talk)
20:12, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
moved_to_last_edit_age
variable at all. If the redirect-to-be-overwritten has only one revision, that's just the same as moved_to_age
. And if it has more than one revision, the move is just impossible.
Suffusion of Yellow (
talk)
04:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
User:SD0001/RFUD-helper
could be set to exclude only if the editor is an admin), and I don't have a strong opinion either way regarding creating a separate filter to log exclusions. Annoyingly, I'm not sure if there's a way to filter out 'page is old but was only recently moved to mainspace' hits.As a side-note, I'm wondering if it's worth notifying
Wikipedia talk:Draft of this proposal - would anyone have any objections if I did? All the best, —
a smart kitten[
meow
09:05, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Required notification; see filter notes. Suffusion of Yellow ( talk) 18:28, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Untested and will probably need some tweaks. Please do not discuss details here, but set to disallow if needed without asking me. Suffusion of Yellow ( talk) 18:28, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Please do not discuss here (of course), but if anyone with access could pop an explanation in the filter notes or via email as to why this is hidden, I would appreciate it. I don't currently see any reason for it to be so, but I may be missing something right in front of my eyes. EggRoll97 ( talk) 16:51, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Right now it is a pain to filter deleted edits. I think the abuse filter should tag speedy deletions and PRODs to help find groups of pages that were deleted together.
For example, if one were to type in speedy-g6
in the "tags" field, then in the deletion log all the pages deleted under G6 should be visible. It would help with stuff like identifying the frequency of use of speedy criteria as well as allowing for searching of PRODs, etc. It possibly could also be done for XfDs.
Awesome
Aasim
17:48, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Just a standard notification, but feel free to make any additional changes if you want to this template. Codename Noreste 🤔 La Suma 02:34, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
Is the line !(new_html contains "shortdescription") & /* Catch-all for weird edge cases */
working as intended? ~10 days ago I did
<this edit>, and it didn't work initially:
log.
Was that line supposed to have covered this case? Perhaps it could check for
the category instead. –
2804:F14:80B7:8201:F172:9A68:94A0:768 (
talk)
21:18, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
Standard notification. Looks overly broad at first glance, but zero FPs so far. There are a few other checks that could be used to narrow it down, but I'll wait for FPs before doing so. Suffusion of Yellow ( talk) 17:51, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
In
this thread, it was suggested to expand filter
614 (
hist ·
log) to include low-effort ways to bypass the blocking of the meme "skibidi". While I know we can't block every variation, we could try to block some of the more common variations. Specifically, we could change \s*bozo|skibidi|gyatt
part of 614 into \s*bozo|sk[i1]?b[i1]?d[i1]?(?<!skbd)|gyatt
(change if there are any FPs, but I know that the string 'skbd' is used in some articles). Also pinging @
Myrealnamm: and @
Suffusion of Yellow: who participated in the previous discussion. –
PharyngealImplosive7
(talk)
22:19, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
gyatt
and \bgyat\b
with \bgyat{1,}\b
, as the very latter I made (and tested with regex101) catches both gyatand
gyatt. Codename Noreste 🤔 La Suma 17:36, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
\bs+k+[i1bdt]{4,}y*\b
, but they actually used "cskbidi". I removed the beginning word boundary, which is probably safe. Removing the ending boundary would match "skidding" and "skittish".
Suffusion of Yellow (
talk)
20:05, 20 May 2024 (UTC)I recently encountered this vandalism adding "Nuh uh" to the end of the artice. Anyone else encountered something like this as well? Feels like it's a possible candidate for mix-used words, noting how a known meme exists for the phrase as well. ABG ( Talk/Report any mistakes here) 01:48, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
From
WP:EF (emphasis added): Except in urgent situations, new edit filters must not be set to disallow without thorough testing and a notice at
the noticeboard to give other edit filter managers and the community time to review the filter for technical accuracy and necessity. In urgent situations, the notice may be made after-the-fact.
I think this is still important, even if most people have gotten out of this habit. Except in the most extreme cases, a day or two in log-only isn't going to hurt, and there may be subtleties you haven't considered. And more eyes are always better.
Suffusion of Yellow (
talk)
18:39, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
I just got done with the bot-reported part of AIV: thank you, thank you to all of you building these filters that keep SO MUCH SHIT out of our articles. I appreciate it. Drmies ( talk) 14:20, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
"Can I vandalize Wikipedia with it?"Thanks to our filter managers for preventing that. Justarandomamerican ( talk) Have a good day! 21:38, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Shortly after Trump was impeached, the was a flood of people trying to add "and the only X to be impeached by the house" every place his name was mentioned. See 1018 ( hist · log). Now, of course, it's "convicted felon". We already have this at a page about a number, and this at a page about his son's school. Obviously, keeping this log-only; in some contexts it's going to be appropriate. But please keep an eye out. Suffusion of Yellow ( talk) 00:28, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
So I tried a bit of tinkering, and it's fully possible of course to collapse the instructions from the editnotice at Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Edit filter/False positives/Reports so that the page isn't half taken up by the templates when editing the page (removing duplicates, anything that has to be done manually instead of script-assisted). It's a useful guide when one is first starting out on the false positives page, but for those who already have experience dealing with them (I would characterize a majority of the editors on the page), a guide to the EFFP template is helpful to have there, but not always necessary. So I would therefore propose that the editnotice be changed from:
{{EFFP/codes}}
to the following:
{{Collapse top|title=Instructions}}
{{EFFP/codes}}
{{Collapse bottom}}
EggRoll97 ( talk) 20:08, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Per subject, personally I feel that middle finger emoji is inappropriate Wikipedia itself, noting how it is often used for talk page vandalism, I suggest here after a talk that filter 680 (or any other appropriate filter) should block middle finger emojis (and potentially other emojis being added by non-autoconfirmed/IP) from userspace, not just mainspace. ABG ( Talk/Report any mistakes here) 01:24, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Should be self explanatory. Private really means private here. Please do not even allude to what it's doing. Suffusion of Yellow ( talk) 20:14, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
A new account suspiciously added
10 thousand bytes (
my removal) of an invisible character to one of the templates at ANI when they made a reply. They also added them to their userpage just before that.
I know this is probably crafty vandalism that only happens once in a while, if at all, but I don't think there's any legitimate reason that anyone would want to add more than a handful of invisible characters (if any invisible characters at all). –
2804:F14:80BE:B501:C033:1C2F:5D84:A79C (
talk)
07:52, 6 June 2024 (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.
Sakura emad ( t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created ( xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ( blocks · rights · moves) · rfar · spi · cci)
Hi,
I am requesting Edit Filter Helper rights to aid in expanding and enhancing the quality and experience of AbuseFilter on the CKB Wikipedia.
I aim to learn from the English Wikipedia's approach to improve ckbwiki's filters and its effectiveness. also i have a good understanding of account security. and as an extended confirmed editor and reviewer on the English Wikipedia, I believe that i have sufficient English understanding and proficiency.
Additionally, I am an interface-admin and sysop on ckbwiki and hold various rights across multiple WMF projects, demonstrating my trustworthiness and capability.
Thanks
—— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (
talk)
05:47, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
abusefilter-modify
right is available to interface editors (not interface administrators, despite the commonality of naming) as well as admins.
EggRoll97 (
talk)
18:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC)This is a highly specialized right that is routinely denied even to experienced editors...Meeting all the above criteria does not guarantee a request will obtain consensus support to pass, and I don't believe you have a demonstrated need currently to see private filters. EggRoll97 ( talk) 22:05, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Please remove Vami IV from filter 856's line 8 (copyvio clerks) because that user has passed away. Thank you. Codename Noreste 🤔 Talk 19:06, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
98 ( hist · log) (Creating very short new article, public)
Per
Wikipedia:Edit filter/Traps and pitfalls#user_rights, I would suggest changing !"extendedconfirmed" in user_rights &
on line 4 with !contains_any(user_groups, "extendedconfirmed", "sysop", "bot") &
because of this: but this will not work as expected if the user did not grant editprotected when setting up a bot password.
. user_rights
may be limited if the user has logged in using a bot password, or is editing with an OAuth application. Thank you.
Codename Noreste 🤔
Talk
00:41, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Heads up: as of last
WP:THURSDAY attempting to save certain filters will give you a Fatal exception of type "MediaWiki\Extension\AbuseFilter\Parser\Exception\UserVisibleException"
. See the task for details. If you need to disable a filter and can't wait for the problem to be fixed, just blank and disable it, but remember you won't be able to restore the old version until the bug is fixed.
Suffusion of Yellow (
talk)
01:36, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
I've wondered for a while whether WP:EFM should be an actual page (similar to WP:EFH), rather than just a section on the edit filter page. Does anyone have any thoughts about whether this might break WP:CREEP, or whether this might be beneficial? EggRoll97 ( talk) 01:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
block-autopromote
, which hasn't been used in over a decade, and would likely need multiple discussions to just have a single filter with it enabled anyways.
EggRoll97 (
talk)
21:31, 20 June 2024 (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 talk page. |
Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 |
Elmira High School, Elmira, OR. Notable Alumni: Paddi Moyer, artisan, has several websites. She is legitimate. There’s no possible way to add her name and it is impossible to contact any of you. 50.45.245.19 ( talk) 09:45, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
No mention of the new guitar player Caleb Tucker 2600:1700:A170:3AF0:B0AE:7D02:4851:7C87 ( talk) 23:38, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
As can be seen from the last 400 edits at
Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested, the bot has, since 9 September 2023, been archiving everything into
Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested/Archive 4 - this appears to be because of
<this change> by @
EEng.
Should something be done about that? There are 21 archives.
Note that I'm posting this here because the talk page for /Requests redirects here. –
2804:F14:809E:DF01:1968:B0BD:7883:4C14 (
talk)
22:41, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
|numberstart=
set to 4 (it doesn't use a counter system like {{
User:MiszaBot/config}}, rather I think it figures out where it should archive every time), and since the archive size was increased enough to allow it to archive to the 4th archive, it did. Probably worth moving everything that ended up in 4 to 21 or 22 and upping numberstart.
Aidan9382 (
talk)
06:53, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Unless I'm missing something, it seems we're currently over the 1k condition limit ( graph)? Though it doesn't seem any edits have been tagged as breaching the limot here ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 10:12, 2 April 2024 (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.
1AmNobody24 ( t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created ( xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ( blocks · rights · moves) · rfar · spi · cci)
The earliest closure has started. ( refresh)
For those of you that do not know him, 1AmNobody24 has been quite an active patroller of EFFPR spanning a little more than 700 edits in the past few months, and he would be a great asset to the edit filter team in order to review false positives that involve private filters, and to assist with improving and creating private filters. Some of his suggestions include Wikipedia:Edit filter noticeboard/Archive 12#Filter 1112, and Special:Permalink/1211462999#Improving Filter 1045.
Outside of edit filters, he does a great job of reverting obvious vandalism and spam, has decent UAA, AFC, CSD and SPI logs, fixes references (including but not limited to bare URLs, CS1 errors), adds wikilinks, and has signed the confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information per this diff on Meta.
Thank you for your consideration in whether or not you want to support him. Codename Noreste 🤔 talk 17:00, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of this nomination here: I accept this nomination. Nobody ( talk) 17:16, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Examplevs "Example") 0x Deadbeef→∞ ( talk to me) 02:08, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Their are a few promotional accounts whose names have 'corporations' in them instead of simply 'corporation' which is currently filtered out. I suggest that we should change the syntax to also log these accounts. We could change the related part of the regex to CORP(?:S?.?$|ORATE|ORATIONS?\b)
. –
PharyngealImplosive7
(talk)
00:29, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
I came across filter 1162, and I am wondering why there are no actions taken when the filter is triggered. Seems like this should be tagged at the very least. GrayStorm( Talk| Contributions) 22:54, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Has anyone else had any problems with searching in filter code (as in, ctrl + f and no search box appearing)? I've tried clicking inside the code then pressing Ctrl+F, tried looking at different filters, tried restarting my computer, nothing. I don't think it's a script issue either, since I tried enabling safemode as well, and that didn't fix it, nor did trying to open the filter in an incognito window. Anyone know if maybe a recent update removed the ability or broke it? EggRoll97 ( talk) 05:04, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
The resource from “
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/extensions/CodeEditor/modules/ace/ext-searchbox.js” was blocked due to MIME type (“text/plain”) mismatch (X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff)
. But oddly it does work on JavaScript pages.
Suffusion of Yellow (
talk)
19:25, 4 April 2024 (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 all. I am presenting myself here to the community today to request that I be granted edit filter manager rights as a non-administrator. I've thought about this for a bit, and it's 0xDeadbeef's response to my request for a bit of advice and his encouragement of boldness here that has pushed me to bite the metaphorical "bullet", so to speak, and write this up. (As a side note, I've hovered over the publish changes button now for about an hour, uncertain if everything is perfect yet.)
Edit filter managers need demonstrated competency with the edit filter to be considered, as well as being trusted by the community to safely utilize the edit filter. As for trust, it's largely a factor that differs by person, though I of course will present that I have been an edit filter helper handling private filters for just over four months now without spilling the beans, and have signed the confidentiality agreement for non-public information (see m:Special:Diff/20180422). For technical competency, I have attached a few links below for both public and private filter changes I have requested. I've attempted to summarize the private filter changes as best I can without compromising private filter integrity.
Public filter changes:
Direct proposal for edits to a filter, implemented with modifications
Private filter changes:
A filter concern about problems with excessive matching
Some suggested improvements to an existing filter of simple changes
General changes to a filter to avoid false positives from it on innocent edits
Further, I have also passed by more than a few false positives reports that had small changes proposed to the filters that just needed an EFM to make them. This is something I would plan to work on a lot if granted the userright. The EFM right would also allow me to use filters
filter 1 (public testing) and
filter 2 (private testing) which can be more efficient than
Special:AbuseFilter/test as it only tests the last 100 edits (though
User:Suffusion of Yellow/FilterDebugger works wonders). I plan to extensively test any edit filter changes I implement, and with new edit filters as applicable, enable on log-only until fine-tuning has kept the false positive count to a low and reasonable degree. I am aware of the confidentiality expectations applicable to the private filters, and am aware of the extensive damage that edit filters can cause if recklessly implemented. I thank you for your consideration, and am fully open to and will respond to any questions and queries as applicable.
EggRoll97 (
talk)
00:11, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Edit filter noticeboard/Archive 10#1157, I agree that I'm not sure if we have to keep 1157 ( hist · log) private, since the filter only logs non-admins/clerks/CheckUsers tagging sockpuppets. Any objections if this filter was to be marked as public to maintain consistency with 1170 ( hist · log)? Thanks. Codename Noreste 🤔 talk 23:38, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Just a random thought, but I randomly found MediaWiki:Abusefilter-autopromote-blocked, which I believe blocks you and disallows the edit. However, we don't use on this wiki at least because it is "unavailable" for some reason. Any idea why? – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 01:15, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
FWIW it looks like it's been used a few times in public filers:
Extended content
|
---|
MariaDB [enwiki_p]> select afh_filter,afh_timestamp from abuse_filter_history where afh_actions like "%blockautopromote%" order by afh_timestamp desc; +------------+----------------+ | afh_filter | afh_timestamp | +------------+----------------+ | 1028 | 20200212151256 | | 201 | 20120810005233 | | 201 | 20120810005150 | | 201 | 20110916071759 | | 201 | 20110827000025 | | 201 | 20110306091844 | | 201 | 20110306091603 | | 1 | 20091203195833 | | 1 | 20091203195531 | | 54 | 20090318191118 | | 54 | 20090318190355 | | 54 | 20090318190101 | | 54 | 20090318185315 | | 54 | 20090318183632 | | 54 | 20090318183119 | | 54 | 20090318175241 | | 1 | 20090318012627 | +------------+----------------+ 17 rows in set (0.044 sec) |
The 2020 use was definitely a mis-click. I don't know how to search the private filter history short of sceen-scraping Special:AbuseFilter/history. Suffusion of Yellow ( talk) 00:31, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
&wpSearchFilter=58
part of the link. –
2804:F1...17:B3C2 (
talk)
02:01, 6 April 2024 (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.
Historically, EFH has been considered a relatively high trust role. I appreciate opinions on this can vary, and so the "need" to grant has been decided by precedence at this board, and evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Since we do not evaluate EFH discussions against a set criteria (like we do TE in Special:Permalink/1215492787, for example), participation is quite important.
Since many editors in the edit-filter community aren't around every day, to maximise participation, I'd like to suggest we extend the time for EFH discussions to the standard 7 days. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 12:18, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
we should really be hearing from the nominees themselves in these discussions. 0x Deadbeef→∞ ( talk to me) 14:55, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
it's 0xDeadbeef's response to my request for a bit of advice and his encouragement of boldness here that has pushed me to bite the metaphorical "bullet". Codename Noreste 🤔 talk 00:41, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Would it be possible to add a check for {{pagelinks|Example Article Name}}
to
1291 (
hist ·
log)? This would allow it to catch edits like
Special:Diff/1217679181 (where one instance of Example Article Name
still needs replacing), in addition to edits like
Special:AbuseLog/37383189. Pinging
DannyS712 as the filter’s creator.
All the best. — a smart kitten[ meow 18:01, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
Please check out User:Suffusion of Yellow/Commonly reverted words and phrases. Still working out the details, but likely any drive-by vandalism "worth" filtering will be there. Let me know what needs explaining. Suffusion of Yellow ( talk) 23:19, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Filter 1301 ( hist · log) has been recently created by an admin to prevent users from editing other users' committed identity templates on user pages, but I noticed some possible issues:
1. The !"sysop" in global_user_groups
condition should either be changed to !("steward" in global_user_groups)
or removed; the former global group doesn't actually exist at all.
2. The generic disallow message should either be changed or removed, since it can be bitey to newer users and irritating to experienced users.
Any opinions or suggestions? Thank you. Codename Noreste 🤔 𝙇𝙖 𝙎𝙪𝙢𝙖 02:08, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
/* ... */
and put it at something like
User:Aditya-an11/key.js. There are also several BEANSy ways in which this filter could be exploited by vandals. Again, I'll email you if you're curious.
Suffusion of Yellow (
talk)
04:19, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
steward
is the appropriate group, I'll update the filter. As far as the message goes, this filter should almost never match, but I'm open to suggestions. Also, if the default disallow message is considered bitey for reasons (beyond it being non-specific), we should discuss making it less bitey under a new topic.
Daniel Quinlan (
talk)
04:02, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
{{
committed identity|Zzuuzz is a total ...}}
Yeah, we could tweak the regex so that they can only talk about how much
DEADBEEF 15 A B00BFACE
FBDB, but is it worth the trouble? I've already though up about four ways to bypass this filter (again, emailed DQ, some of them are sort of relevant to other filters).
Suffusion of Yellow (
talk)
18:03, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
See this filter log, and this is something that I've seen before. Members or coordinators of the education program getting caught up in filters is probably one of the worst possible false positives and should be addressed immediately. Taking Out The Trash ( talk) 17:38, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Standard notification. Split out of 260 ( hist · log), 384 ( hist · log), and 614 ( hist · log), with a handful of additions. No FPs in the few dozen "new" matches. I'm not going to add this to Template:DatBot filters. In fact, that was part of the reason for the split. I doubt that users adding "lol" and "fdshksdjfhskdjdshfflshjfsldkhfdslkhsfd" are really going to put in the effort to work around the filters, so let's have a bit less clutter at WP:AIV/TB2. Suffusion of Yellow ( talk) 00:36, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
After noticing this, I suggest excluding undos and reverts from being logged onto the edit filter log by #867. Toadette ( Let's talk together!) 14:47, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
page_last_edit_age >= 86400
to exclude reverts of recent edits. But even that would exclude rapid edit warring to overturn an AFD.
Suffusion of Yellow (
talk)
20:59, 14 April 2024 (UTC)Until
WP:VPT#I don't understand these edit summaries (task:
T360164) is fixed, would it be worth it to change the pattern to match these cases too?
I'm not really sure how to check how often edits like that are happening and not getting logged by the filter, other than manually looking at
Special:RecentChanges (I also don't know what other filter this might be affecting), but I figured I'd point it out and ask anyways. –
143.208.239.226 (
talk)
02:32, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
(Topic name is a reference to one of my favorite error messages.)
The 15 April The Tech News weekly summary includes this blurb:
Volunteer developers are kindly asked to update the code of their tools and features to handle temporary accounts. Learn more
Of course, it's not just code that will need to be updated. A good number of edit filters are going to need to be updated. I don't think we necessarily want or need to update anything before it happens, but I'd suggest enumerating the variables and functions most likely to be affected and start building a list of filters expected to require updates.
(This may have been discussed before, but I didn't immediately find anything in the archive.) Daniel Quinlan ( talk) 23:57, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
ip_in_range()
, that will be bad, and some filters will have to just be disabled. But otherwise, so long as temp accounts are never autoconfirmed, and have an edit count and age that stays at zero or null, I don't think a huge number of filters will need updating. If user_age
and user_editcount
start incrementing, then we might want to check user_type
in some filters. I'd prefer to see how temp-account users act first. Will the vandals clear cookies after every edit? Or will most of them be too clueless? No way to know right now.
Suffusion of Yellow (
talk)
01:04, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
user_age
which is definitely used as an IP test.
Daniel Quinlan (
talk)
01:47, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
!("confirmed" in user_groups)
(as long as the temp accounts can't become confirmed or get other user permissions but that should happen anyways) would work quite well to prevent new users and the new temp account issues. –
PharyngealImplosive7
(talk)
02:39, 16 April 2024 (UTC)user_type
variable will probably work well for most simple filters.ip_in_range
and ip_in_ranges
, including some LTA filters, so hopefully
T357772 ends up in a good place.
Daniel Quinlan (
talk)
06:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)("Draftified article more than 180 days old")
Has some inevitable false positives due to AfDs, but people closing those know what they're doing. Otherwise there are a lot of draftifications of old articles by people who either don't realize how old the page is, don't know they're not supposed to do that, or both, and it would be nice if they could be warned as they do it, not later if someone happens to notice. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:43, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Not opposed to this, but both User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js or User:MPGuy2824/MoveToDraft.js just say something like this when a filter is tripped:
Could not move page: API error: abusefilter-warning Try again ?
Also MPGuy's version already gives this warning:
which is kind of hard to miss. Ideally, these script would be updated to show the parsed warning, though I'm not sure how much of an effect it will have. (Courtesy pings Evad37, MPGuy2824.) Suffusion of Yellow ( talk) 19:45, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure about this. I've manually analyzed the last 50 filter hits; and while 17 of those were true positives, there were 27 false positives (along with 6 cases in which it wasn't as clear to me). As far as I can see, the majority of the FPs came from round-robin page moves, draftification following WP:AFD/ WP:REFUND, and situations in which the page itself had existed for more than 180 days, but had only recently been moved to mainspace (and were therefore within the time limit for draftification):
Although I think a warning for true positives would be beneficial (for the same reason as Pppery), I'm wondering if there are any ways that the rate of FPs can be decreased before this filter is set as such. As things currently stand, I'm leaning oppose, due to the large proportion of warnings that would be given to editors encountering false positives. (Also,
Courtesy ping:
Bradv as the filter's author.)
All the best. — a smart kitten[ meow 16:39, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
moved_from_age > 15552000 & moved_to_last_edit > 604800
moved_to_last_edit_age
seems to be null
if the target page doesn't exist; see
testwiki:Special:AbuseLog/102036.
Suffusion of Yellow (
talk)
19:31, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
moved_from_age > 15552000 & (moved_to_last_edit > 604800 || moved_to_last_edit == null)
but I'm not too sure about this. –
PharyngealImplosive7
(talk)
20:12, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
moved_to_last_edit_age
variable at all. If the redirect-to-be-overwritten has only one revision, that's just the same as moved_to_age
. And if it has more than one revision, the move is just impossible.
Suffusion of Yellow (
talk)
04:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
User:SD0001/RFUD-helper
could be set to exclude only if the editor is an admin), and I don't have a strong opinion either way regarding creating a separate filter to log exclusions. Annoyingly, I'm not sure if there's a way to filter out 'page is old but was only recently moved to mainspace' hits.As a side-note, I'm wondering if it's worth notifying
Wikipedia talk:Draft of this proposal - would anyone have any objections if I did? All the best, —
a smart kitten[
meow
09:05, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Required notification; see filter notes. Suffusion of Yellow ( talk) 18:28, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Untested and will probably need some tweaks. Please do not discuss details here, but set to disallow if needed without asking me. Suffusion of Yellow ( talk) 18:28, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Please do not discuss here (of course), but if anyone with access could pop an explanation in the filter notes or via email as to why this is hidden, I would appreciate it. I don't currently see any reason for it to be so, but I may be missing something right in front of my eyes. EggRoll97 ( talk) 16:51, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Right now it is a pain to filter deleted edits. I think the abuse filter should tag speedy deletions and PRODs to help find groups of pages that were deleted together.
For example, if one were to type in speedy-g6
in the "tags" field, then in the deletion log all the pages deleted under G6 should be visible. It would help with stuff like identifying the frequency of use of speedy criteria as well as allowing for searching of PRODs, etc. It possibly could also be done for XfDs.
Awesome
Aasim
17:48, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Just a standard notification, but feel free to make any additional changes if you want to this template. Codename Noreste 🤔 La Suma 02:34, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
Is the line !(new_html contains "shortdescription") & /* Catch-all for weird edge cases */
working as intended? ~10 days ago I did
<this edit>, and it didn't work initially:
log.
Was that line supposed to have covered this case? Perhaps it could check for
the category instead. –
2804:F14:80B7:8201:F172:9A68:94A0:768 (
talk)
21:18, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
Standard notification. Looks overly broad at first glance, but zero FPs so far. There are a few other checks that could be used to narrow it down, but I'll wait for FPs before doing so. Suffusion of Yellow ( talk) 17:51, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
In
this thread, it was suggested to expand filter
614 (
hist ·
log) to include low-effort ways to bypass the blocking of the meme "skibidi". While I know we can't block every variation, we could try to block some of the more common variations. Specifically, we could change \s*bozo|skibidi|gyatt
part of 614 into \s*bozo|sk[i1]?b[i1]?d[i1]?(?<!skbd)|gyatt
(change if there are any FPs, but I know that the string 'skbd' is used in some articles). Also pinging @
Myrealnamm: and @
Suffusion of Yellow: who participated in the previous discussion. –
PharyngealImplosive7
(talk)
22:19, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
gyatt
and \bgyat\b
with \bgyat{1,}\b
, as the very latter I made (and tested with regex101) catches both gyatand
gyatt. Codename Noreste 🤔 La Suma 17:36, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
\bs+k+[i1bdt]{4,}y*\b
, but they actually used "cskbidi". I removed the beginning word boundary, which is probably safe. Removing the ending boundary would match "skidding" and "skittish".
Suffusion of Yellow (
talk)
20:05, 20 May 2024 (UTC)I recently encountered this vandalism adding "Nuh uh" to the end of the artice. Anyone else encountered something like this as well? Feels like it's a possible candidate for mix-used words, noting how a known meme exists for the phrase as well. ABG ( Talk/Report any mistakes here) 01:48, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
From
WP:EF (emphasis added): Except in urgent situations, new edit filters must not be set to disallow without thorough testing and a notice at
the noticeboard to give other edit filter managers and the community time to review the filter for technical accuracy and necessity. In urgent situations, the notice may be made after-the-fact.
I think this is still important, even if most people have gotten out of this habit. Except in the most extreme cases, a day or two in log-only isn't going to hurt, and there may be subtleties you haven't considered. And more eyes are always better.
Suffusion of Yellow (
talk)
18:39, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
I just got done with the bot-reported part of AIV: thank you, thank you to all of you building these filters that keep SO MUCH SHIT out of our articles. I appreciate it. Drmies ( talk) 14:20, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
"Can I vandalize Wikipedia with it?"Thanks to our filter managers for preventing that. Justarandomamerican ( talk) Have a good day! 21:38, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Shortly after Trump was impeached, the was a flood of people trying to add "and the only X to be impeached by the house" every place his name was mentioned. See 1018 ( hist · log). Now, of course, it's "convicted felon". We already have this at a page about a number, and this at a page about his son's school. Obviously, keeping this log-only; in some contexts it's going to be appropriate. But please keep an eye out. Suffusion of Yellow ( talk) 00:28, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
So I tried a bit of tinkering, and it's fully possible of course to collapse the instructions from the editnotice at Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Edit filter/False positives/Reports so that the page isn't half taken up by the templates when editing the page (removing duplicates, anything that has to be done manually instead of script-assisted). It's a useful guide when one is first starting out on the false positives page, but for those who already have experience dealing with them (I would characterize a majority of the editors on the page), a guide to the EFFP template is helpful to have there, but not always necessary. So I would therefore propose that the editnotice be changed from:
{{EFFP/codes}}
to the following:
{{Collapse top|title=Instructions}}
{{EFFP/codes}}
{{Collapse bottom}}
EggRoll97 ( talk) 20:08, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Per subject, personally I feel that middle finger emoji is inappropriate Wikipedia itself, noting how it is often used for talk page vandalism, I suggest here after a talk that filter 680 (or any other appropriate filter) should block middle finger emojis (and potentially other emojis being added by non-autoconfirmed/IP) from userspace, not just mainspace. ABG ( Talk/Report any mistakes here) 01:24, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Should be self explanatory. Private really means private here. Please do not even allude to what it's doing. Suffusion of Yellow ( talk) 20:14, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
A new account suspiciously added
10 thousand bytes (
my removal) of an invisible character to one of the templates at ANI when they made a reply. They also added them to their userpage just before that.
I know this is probably crafty vandalism that only happens once in a while, if at all, but I don't think there's any legitimate reason that anyone would want to add more than a handful of invisible characters (if any invisible characters at all). –
2804:F14:80BE:B501:C033:1C2F:5D84:A79C (
talk)
07:52, 6 June 2024 (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.
Sakura emad ( t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created ( xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ( blocks · rights · moves) · rfar · spi · cci)
Hi,
I am requesting Edit Filter Helper rights to aid in expanding and enhancing the quality and experience of AbuseFilter on the CKB Wikipedia.
I aim to learn from the English Wikipedia's approach to improve ckbwiki's filters and its effectiveness. also i have a good understanding of account security. and as an extended confirmed editor and reviewer on the English Wikipedia, I believe that i have sufficient English understanding and proficiency.
Additionally, I am an interface-admin and sysop on ckbwiki and hold various rights across multiple WMF projects, demonstrating my trustworthiness and capability.
Thanks
—— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (
talk)
05:47, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
abusefilter-modify
right is available to interface editors (not interface administrators, despite the commonality of naming) as well as admins.
EggRoll97 (
talk)
18:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC)This is a highly specialized right that is routinely denied even to experienced editors...Meeting all the above criteria does not guarantee a request will obtain consensus support to pass, and I don't believe you have a demonstrated need currently to see private filters. EggRoll97 ( talk) 22:05, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Please remove Vami IV from filter 856's line 8 (copyvio clerks) because that user has passed away. Thank you. Codename Noreste 🤔 Talk 19:06, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
98 ( hist · log) (Creating very short new article, public)
Per
Wikipedia:Edit filter/Traps and pitfalls#user_rights, I would suggest changing !"extendedconfirmed" in user_rights &
on line 4 with !contains_any(user_groups, "extendedconfirmed", "sysop", "bot") &
because of this: but this will not work as expected if the user did not grant editprotected when setting up a bot password.
. user_rights
may be limited if the user has logged in using a bot password, or is editing with an OAuth application. Thank you.
Codename Noreste 🤔
Talk
00:41, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Heads up: as of last
WP:THURSDAY attempting to save certain filters will give you a Fatal exception of type "MediaWiki\Extension\AbuseFilter\Parser\Exception\UserVisibleException"
. See the task for details. If you need to disable a filter and can't wait for the problem to be fixed, just blank and disable it, but remember you won't be able to restore the old version until the bug is fixed.
Suffusion of Yellow (
talk)
01:36, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
I've wondered for a while whether WP:EFM should be an actual page (similar to WP:EFH), rather than just a section on the edit filter page. Does anyone have any thoughts about whether this might break WP:CREEP, or whether this might be beneficial? EggRoll97 ( talk) 01:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
block-autopromote
, which hasn't been used in over a decade, and would likely need multiple discussions to just have a single filter with it enabled anyways.
EggRoll97 (
talk)
21:31, 20 June 2024 (UTC)