![]() | 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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 13 |
for detecting draft articles that already exist in mainspace? If there isn't, I think that would be a good filter to block page creations of draft articles in namespace. A a s i m 20:15, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
new_html
, and that would probably specifically involve any edit introducing the {{
Draft article}}
template, since that template can say, "There is a Wikipedia article named <a href..." --
zzuuzz
(talk)
22:58, 27 August 2020 (UTC)First, the current situation:
Filter | Description | Namespaces checked | Groups excluded | Summaries excluded | Deletion tags excluded |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
869 ( hist · log) | Adding deprecated source to articles | (Article), Draft | bot | ^(Revert|rv|Undid) |
no |
891 ( hist · log) | Predatory open access journals | (Article), User, Template, Draft | (none) | (none) | no |
894 ( hist · log) | Self-Published Sources | (Article), Draft | bot | AFCH |
no |
1034 ( hist · log) | WikiLeaks | (Article), Talk, Draft | bot | ^(Revert|rv|Undid) |
no |
1045 ( hist · log) | Self-published (blog / web host) | (Article), Draft | bot | AFCH|WP:TW |
yes |
1057 ( hist · log) | Citing Wikipedia | (Article), Draft | extendedconfirmed, sysop, bot | (none) | n/a |
I'd like to make this more consistent:
^(Revert|rv|Undid)|AFCH|WP:TW|reFill
from all the filters. Why reFill? Well, the source was already on the page; it just wasn't detectable until it was filled in. We shouldn't be warning people for fixing bare URLs, even if the URLs point to crappy sources.^(Revert|rv|Undid)|AFCH|WP:TW|reFill
. This will be a bit of pain to update, but it's not a disaster if it falls behind. Pinging @ JzG, Newslinger, and Headbomb: for thoughts. Suffusion of Yellow ( talk) 20:35, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Grabbing data of the earlier revision: ⧼abusefilter-warning-predatory⧽
.
Suffusion of Yellow (
talk)
22:29, 26 August 2020 (UTC)I think that filter 733 should prevent the user from performing the action in question. I don't see any situation where new users creating pages in other editors userspace are necessary. This should be done to prevent the attacks of vandals like this. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 17:55, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I'm from ckbwiki. I want to know how filter 135 works? I have just added my own language letters to the filter, but today I found out that the filter has rejected several good edits! How many times has a letter repeated? I did some tests and found out that every double-repeated letter would catch by the filter, am i right? Thanks! ⇒ Aram Talk 22:08, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi! I added The Sun to an article in my sandbox and got no warning; and when I pasted the article into Mainspace a vague warning that *some* link was deprecated (out of the 20+ I was using) but it didn’t tell me which one.
I’m hoping both these issues can be addressed. Gleeanon409 ( talk) 04:18, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Please see the notes. I'm not setting to disallow now, but if this turns out to be needed, it's there. Or should this be done now, per WP:UCS? Nothing has happened yet, but people are people. Should this be set to disallow right now, per IAR? Yes there will be FPs. If you have any suggested tweaks, please email the list. Suffusion of Yellow ( talk) 00:21, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Just cleaned up a bunch of those. This one should be edit filtered, not sure which. Possibly 894 . Its uses are almost exclusively fringe. There are occasional exceptions, but they are exceedingly rare. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 02:24, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi folks,
Something that has bugged me for a long time: it's really hard to examine what parts of a regex matched a given edit (when, say, trying to see which filter conditions were met for one of our big LTA filters). I would like to write a small userscript that, given a specific edit filter hit, will load the regex(es) and input data into a third-party regex tester, currently looking at regex101.com (let's be honest - odds are, most of our private filters have been tested on one of those at some point). I've looked at their privacy policy, the testing is all client-side and stuff only gets saved to their servers if you explicitly click the save button. The biggest source of a potential information leak is the URL itself, since the preload is done with URL params (i.e. https://regex101.com/?regex=something&text=somethingelse). Since the site uses https, the regex would be stored in the server's logs but wouldn't be visible to anyone else. The question: is that acceptable to edit filter folks, or is that too much of a potential leak? Personally I think it's a reasonable trade (assuming that the website isn't run by an LTA), but I wanted to ask for other folks' opinions before proceeding. If people do think it is a risk, I will still write the script, but will put in a safeguard to prevent it from sending private filter data off-wiki. GeneralNotability ( talk) 01:45, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
On the page Hypatia, there is an IP vandal (not autoconfirmed) making edits that would normally be disallowed by the edit filter. The first edit, [1], the IP made involved persistent repeating characters and possibly nonsense characters that are normally disallowed under filters 135 and 231. The IP has made another edit [2] that I believe would normally be disallowed under filter 680 because it contained Emoji unicode characters. All three filters disallow such edits to prevent vandalism from occurring, and if the filters are broken then the vandalism which wastes other editors time just appears and possibly renders the edit filters useless. Can you please explain how and why these IPs bypassed such filters? Thanks. Train of Knowledge ( Talk) 22:33, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
!(new_wikitext irlike "astro|category:unicode blocks")
and the wikitext does contain "astro" (as "astronomy")...maybe that's it.
King of Hearts, that appears to be your addition, so pinging you. It's entirely possible that we see so little vandalism like this that it's not worth fixing.
GeneralNotability (
talk)
23:31, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
I was wondering if it is possible to have a filter on non-XCON editors that reminds editors of our non-free image usage policy? The message could be something like:
![]() | An automated filter has detected that you are attempting to upload a high-resolution non-free image to Wikipedia. Per our image usage policy, we require non-free images to be of a low-enough resolution in order to satisfy our non-free content criteria with a guideline of 100,000 pixel maximum. If you understand the details of the non-free content criteria and believe this image is of sufficient low resolution, feel free to click "Ignore any warnings" and submit your upload. If you believe you are seeing this message in error, please let us know. |
Such a filter would be useful to get new users to compress their non-free images. I just stumbled across an image by a seemingly new editor that was of too high a resolution. A a s i m 16:54, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
![]() | You are seeing this message because an automated filter has detected that you are attempting to upload a high-resolution image to Wikipedia.
|
A a s i m 17:18, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
(action='stashupload' | action='upload') && (file_width * file_height > 100000)
A
a
s
i
m
17:27, 16 September 2020 (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 would like to have access to abuse filters logs (many are private, for obvious reasons) as they would help to respond to my work on false positives. I am specifically interested in abusefilter-log-private
permission and I intend to use them only in filters (
247,
354,
466,
793,
1001,
1053,
1074, others that may be useful
34,
397,
739,
768,
1032) mainly to respond false positives, and export to other wikis. I've configure (
11) and create new (
19) two abuse filters for
bnwiki. I think abuse filters logs of this private filters can be of great help, and to access them I need to be a edit filter manager or abuse filter helper, so I make this request. I have no intention of using this permission for anything other than abuse filters. Thanks for consideration, and open for questions. Warm Regards,
ZI Jony
(Talk)
13:15, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
and export to other wikis. Only slightly, since none of the filters mentioned are LTA filters, but still - I trust the editor meant they would consult with EFMs first. Otherwise at a very quick glance no apparent issues or indication would abuse, but not the strongest use case either; relatively neutral. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 14:17, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
The only awarding of EFM I recall in recent to a non-administrator is to Headbomb (nearly a year agoThe most recent was actually EEng, I believe. Although slightly shortlived, if he asked for it here it'd likely be approved. As I said somewhere where a discussion over IA happened, people are way too picky about both of those rights. Not saying this candidate should have them, but both the fear-mongering over IA and the fear-mongering over EFM are highly overrated. "Demonstration of need" should be put back into context. By current standards, your example of Suffursion of Yellow (who asked for EFH for false positives, and EFM), as well as Danny would not be EFM/EFHs. There are IAs with the permission with less technical competence than many other admins, and non-admins gadget maintainers. Perspective helps. There is, realistically, minimal more harm an EFM can do than an EFH. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 01:14, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
The current conditions are:
equals_to_any( page_namespace, 0, 2, 118 ) & (
stringy := "{{\s*([Cc]opyvio/?core|[Cc]opyvio-revdel|[Rr]evdel).*}}";
removed_lines rlike stringy &
!(added_lines rlike stringy) &
!contains_any(user_groups, "sysop", "patroller")
)
However, sometimes the copyvio template will span multiple lines, and its removal thus won't be caught, or switching it from one line to multiple will trigger a false positive (example: Special:Diff/980529995). I suggest changing it to
equals_to_any( page_namespace, 0, 2, 118 ) & (
stringy := "{{([Cc]opyvio/?core|[Cc]opyvio-revdel|[Rr]evdel).*}}";
rmwhitespace( removed_lines ) rlike stringy &
!( rmwhitespace( added_lines ) rlike stringy) &
!contains_any(user_groups, "sysop", "patroller")
)
which would remove whitespace from the diff before processing (and also remove the \s*
since that matches any whitespace, which wouldn't be needed).
Testing with User:Suffusion of Yellow/batchtest-plus against prior hits to this filter showed a couple other cases where the new filter wouldn't match but the old one did. They all appear to have been false positives, except for
This change would also catch more removals, eg if the template on the page was only multiple lines and then removed.
Thanks, -- DannyS712 ( talk) 18:34, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
added_lines
. See
phab:T176291.
Suffusion of Yellow (
talk)
17:34, 8 October 2020 (UTC)Just noting that I've created this as an emergency filter, as it looks like we have someone running a bot (or working really fast) to vandalize high-profile pages. See the list of accounts in the notes, each of which got to around 50 edits before being blocked. I tested a different version of this on 1013 ( hist · log), and I'm fairly confident that there will be few false positives. Set to log-only if needed. Suffusion of Yellow ( talk) 06:09, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello, May I request an edit filter helper to check my expanding on the page "Mrs.Gould's sunbird"? The filter seems automatically identified my work as unconstructive. I do what to know what is not good enough and I can fix it. Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DPB0976 ( talk • contribs) 07:20, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Probably of interest to the edit filter community: phab:T263024. Short version: the plan is to remove the rmwhitespace() behavior from rmspecials(), if you want that to be a part of your filter's behavior you can do rmwhitespace(rmspecials()), which should have the same behavior both before and after this change. GeneralNotability ( talk) 17:01, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
I noticed in the filter log for this user that there is a private edit filter brazenly titled "Catch the Loser LTA". Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but I thought that to prevent provoking investigation into circumvention that we don't describe private filters after the user they're meant to catch?
Apologies if discussing a private filter's public description is out of scope for this noticeboard. If so, I'll email instead.
Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. ( Contact me | Contributions). 04:15, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
For anyone who missed it, from the recent Tech News:
rmspecials()
function will be updated soon so that it does not remove the "space" character. Wikis are advised to wrap all the uses of rmspecials()
with rmwhitespace()
wherever necessary to keep filters' behavior unchanged. You can use the search function on
Special:AbuseFilter to locate its usage. (
Phab ticket)E Eng 18:07, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
I made this userbox for anyone who identifies vandalism/disruptive editing through the Edit filter log such as myself. Jerm ( talk) 18:06, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Wikitext | userbox | where used | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
{{
User wikipedia/Abuse log}}
|
|
linked pages |
Same LTA as another filter (see the notes). Yes, it looks overly broad at first glance, but check the actions closely. Suffusion of Yellow ( talk) 17:18, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
Currently, filter 1084 catches non-free image uploads of at least 120,000 pixels without a reduction request. I suggest lowering that to 105,000 in line with Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/JJMC89 bot 19. Ntx61 ( talk) 07:47, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Just a simple question, I hope: Is there a technique for using the filter log just to search for and generate a list of a specific user's edits? Thanks! Pasdecomplot ( talk) 19:49, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
user_name == 'Pasdecomplot'
), however on enwiki it's considered too inefficient to do this. --
zzuuzz
(talk)
19:59, 5 November 2020 (UTC)Hello, I submitted a false positive report concerning my post at Talk:List of youngest birth mothers, but it displays the wrong IP address, page(s), and timestamp. I hope it is not overlooked due to this error. 144.96.41.37 ( talk) 12:39, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Re-enabled. Add to the first line as needed. See the mailing list for more details. Suffusion of Yellow ( talk) 20:43, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello! I would like to request the Edit Filter Helper permission, to:
I've engaged in some prior discussion of filter development (admittedly not much), and have EFFPR on my watchlist, which I check on whenever I'm not doing some other task. Currently interested in developing a filter to help catch corporate spam (likely just as a tagging filter), and, as mentioned, helping at EFFPR. Thanks for considering the request, — moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 19:29, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
So I recently tripped an edit filter and with edit summary reminder enabled, if I submit it without an edit summary the edit filter warning appears again, leading to a loop (EF warning -> summary reminder -> EF warning -> summary reminder) and so on. The only way I could escape this is entering an edit summary. Is this a known issue or what? FMecha ( to talk| to see log) 06:06, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Does edit filter 320 have an exemption for Maternal insult and other similar pages? Thanks for your time. Opal|zukor( discuss) 13:36, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Deferred Changes has been mentioned many times in these archives, most recently by me in June. enwiki passed it in WP:DC2016. It would allow edit filters to queue edits for review. We're still stuck on the technical implementation. As a result, perhaps the following Community Wishlist item will be of interest to talk page watchers: m:Community Wishlist Survey 2021/Admins and patrollers/Implement deferred changes. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 00:46, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Reviving an idea from back in January. I think we should use a friendlier message for some filters. I won't repeat all the arguments made in that thread, but basically:
Standard disallow message:
![]() | An automated filter has identified this edit as potentially unconstructive, so it has been disallowed. If this edit is constructive, please
report this error. Disruptive behavior may result in being
blocked from editing.
|
Proposed new message:
![]() | Your changes have not been published. In response to an ongoing pattern of abuse, an automated filter has prevented this edit. Don't worry, your work has not been lost! The full content of this edit has been saved, but it will not be visible to readers unless you take further action. Please go the report page and follow the instructions. An experienced editor will review your changes, and provide assistance. |
The previous discussion got bogged down in the question of whether we should use this message for LTAs only, or for general vandalism filters also. Let's start with some of the LTA filters, and go from there. Suffusion of Yellow ( talk) 21:11, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
![]() | Please double check your edit. An automated filter has identified potential problems with your edit, such as broken wiki markup. If you only meant to experiment, please use the sandbox for that. If you do not see any potential problems with your edit, click Publish changes to save it, leaving a detailed description in the edit summary explaining what you are doing, and, if you have any questions, feel free to reach out to our help desk. |
potential problemsis a new user (who is ignorant of 99% of our policies and 100% of our MOS) supposed to look for? Suffusion of Yellow ( talk) 02:11, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Can we adjust 602 to also flag usages of {{ Ds/aware}} (insertion and removal)? Reason being that currently system logs don't flag it, so when filing a WP:AE report one has to dig the page history (or use WikiBlame) to find an inserting edit. Similarly, if it's removed (but was present at time of problematic diffs) one may not realise the person was aware at the time. Example case is this current AE case, with this log. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 16:32, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
IP address has used the term "bruv" on the page John O. Bennett. I know that the phrase Bruh is disallowed through 614, but the term Bruv which is also used in vandalism trends is similarly used (especially by IPs and newly registered users wishing to circumvent the filter). Can you please add Bruv to 614? Thanks. Train of Knowledge ( Talk) 23:03, 3 December 2020 (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.
Previous participants (no closing administrator pinged due to withdrawl in previous request): @ Nihlus:
Hello all. So, I'd like to cut to the point. I'm requesting, for the 4th time, edit filter helper. I have a few reasons, so let me just explain them here, along with my analysis of the requirements to be granted the userright.
Demonstrated need for access (e.g. SPI clerk, involvement with edit filters)
No recent blocks or relevant sanctions.
At least basic understanding of account security.
At least basic understanding of regular expressions if the intent is to assist with authoring filters.
Sufficient ability with the English language to understand notes and explanations for edit filters.
I realize that the previous 3 requests are possibly one of the big concerns that may be brought up. If it is found appropriate, I would like to offer that I be given a temporary grant of the userright, so that my contributions with the userright, may be evaluated after I am given the time to gain the sufficient experience that has been mentioned by Nihlus in my previous request.
Please let me know if you have any questions. I'd be happy to answer. Thanks. EggRoll97 ( talk) 05:44, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Spitballing: maybe we could have a "sponsoring" approach instead? Instead of the usual !vote, a current EFH/EFM can put a candidate forward and say "I trust them and think they'd benefit from having the permission" and the candidate is presumed to be suitable unless someone brings up a significant concern. Again, just writing off the top of my head here.Basically edit Wikipedia:Edit_filter_helper#Process_for_requesting so that CUs can give this out as they do, or an EFM can give it out to someone they trust. If that's too far, perhaps keep it a discussion but make it a nomination-only process so that self-noms aren't permitted, and a request has to be submitted by an EFM?
Just started Wikipedia talk:Edit filter helper#Nomination requirement?; thoughts welcome. Enterprisey ( talk!) 05:20, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Noticed 712 exists whilst reviewing Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BattyBot 53. Could we change this filter to also track changes in death date, not just birth date? Pinging Galobtter & Rich Farmbrough who may have interest in doing this (or anyone else!). Thanks, ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 20:23, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
facebook|twitter|instagram|
to facebook|fb|twitter|instagram|ig|
me|us
to me|us|him|her|them
page_namespace == 0
to equals_to_any(page_namespace, 0, 2)
.Perryprog ( talk) 22:00, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm also wondering if this filter could be generalized a little bit more, although that could, of course, lead to more false positives. Maybe something like checking for added text of one of the sites and a separate check for anything that looks like a social media handle, probably in the same line. This could potentially catch a wider range of situations like "Their insta: @foobar". (I'm not totally sure what the idiomatic way of implementing that would be, though.) Perryprog ( talk) 22:12, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Sorry for posting this in the wrong place; I was under the impression that EFR was for requesting new filters—its header only seems to mention requesting new filters, so it wasn't very obvious where to post this. Perryprog ( talk) 22:54, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Related to some recent discussions about the bar for entry for EFH, phab:T242821 proposes splitting the right to use the testing interface to be separate from the right to view private filters. -- DannyS712 ( talk) 22:15, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
I believe that the Wikileaks filter is misleading. The description at Special:Tags says "This edit added a deprecated source. Deprecated sources are not usually appropriate for Wikipedia articles" however Wikileaks is not a deprecated source (it's classified as generally unreliable and the consensus is that "It may be appropriate to cite a document from WikiLeaks as a primary source, but only if it is discussed by a reliable source"). Due to the tag wording users who see edits tagged by this filter revert such edits thinking it's a deprecated source.
Please note that we already have a filter for true deprecated sources. As far as I can tell there is no tag for unreliable sources - as many of them have certain legitimate uses - so the wikileaks filter should be deactivated for now. I'm not against marking generally unreliable sources but it should be a community decision and it should be applied to all of them rather than selectively. Alaexis ¿question? 21:59, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
@ Thryduulf: A new tag is created when a filter is saved with a non-existent tag. I have done so.
Two more steps, admin-only:
As to your other question, Alaexis, I think it was a WP:BOLD move by JzG but I could be mistaken. Suffusion of Yellow ( talk) 20:22, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
CaptainEek semi-protected this for a day, I brought it up on their talk page, but they seem to have gone offline mid-conversation. This protection makes no sense. The vast majority of filters start with !("confirmed" in user_groups)
. There's no point in having this page, if it's protected. I'm nervous now to update 1112; a serious mistake could cause a flood of FPs to disappear into the bigger flood of bad edits. BS reports can be removed without comment.
Also can someone answer my request at MediaWiki talk:Abusefilter-disallowed-1112? The new message might cut down on bad reports. If it makes it worse, I'll switch back to the default. Suffusion of Yellow ( talk) 00:16, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
See this AN/I thread for context. -- C o r t e x 💬talk 22:53, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
^\*\s*(?:\[\[)?\w+ \w+
since they're usually bulleted items followed by a first and last name. —
MusikAnimal
talk
02:53, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
This is flooding in at an absurd rate. The filter is not perfect, but it should hopefully be only a few days before the TikTok kids move on to the Nose Bean Challenge or whatever. Should there a be custom warning? On the one hand there will be some innocent users who don't know about WP:N etc.. On the other, I don't want to tell people how to avoid the filter. Suffusion of Yellow ( talk) 23:35, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
This is ridiculous. 50 saved changes in last hour in spite of the warning, with only a few FPs. I've set the 1112 to disallow, but it shouldn't be left that way longer than necessary, unless someone can reduce FPs more. Suffusion of Yellow ( talk) 22:17, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() | An automated filter has identified a problem with this edit, so it has been disallowed.
Please do not add yourself, your friends, or your relatives to lists of notable people. Do not add anyone else, unless your edit can be supported by multiple reliable sources. Social media sites are not reliable sources. If you were not adding a name to a list, please report this error and another editor will provide assistance. If you were adding a name to a list, please go the same page, but be sure to provide reliable sources backing up your claim. Unsourced requests, or requests sourced to social media, will be ignored or removed. |
Can I just remove reports from EF/FP or request immediate archiving? Quite a few of these editors who've been stopped for the right reasons by the filter are posting reports that will obviously have no action. Pahunkat ( talk) 21:16, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
This may not be the correct place to post this, however I noticed recently that reverting an edit will erroneously trigger edit filter 686. Link.
I don't see any explicit check for a reverted edit in Extension:AbuseFilter but something like this could be used:
!"confirmed" in user_groups &
page_namespace == 0 &
old_wikitext rlike "Category:Living people" &
edit_delta > 200 & !added_lines rlike "\|-" &
rcount ("<ref\b|http|[Ii]nfobox", added_lines) <= rcount ("<ref\b|http|[Ii]nfobox", removed_lines) &
!summary contains "(Undid revision "
It's a quick fix and there's almost certainly a better way to do it, so someone smarter than me ought to figure it out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catalyzzt ( talk • contribs)
Hi, wanted to mention how useful the "CSD tag removed by page creator" tag is when wading through a watchlist. If there are any plans on reopening that discussion from last May about setting it to disallow then I would be in support of that! (Doesn't seem like anyone was really opposed to it) – Thjarkur (talk) 22:49, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
— Special:Permalink/1002340365
As Thjarkur has reminded me on my talk page: Any objections to setting filter 1060 to disallow?
Proposed disallow message: MediaWiki:Abusefilter-disallowed-remove-csd.
![]() | An
automated filter has identified that you are attempting to remove a deletion notice from a page that you have created.
The creator of a page may not remove a speedy deletion tag from it. If you created this page and you disagree with the given reason for deletion, please go to the talk page and leave a message explaining why you believe it should not be deleted. You can also visit the talk page to check if you have received a response to your message. If you believe you received this message in error, you may report this error. |
~ ToBeFree ( talk) 02:31, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
{{TALKPAGENAME}}
instead of
Help:Talk pages?
Suffusion of Yellow (
talk)
04:06, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Done
~ ToBeFree (
talk)
08:41, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
I was wondering if filter 733 could be set to disallow. This is because there's not really any reason for a new user to create a page in someone else's userspace, and also to stop the LTA Evlekis who attacks like that all the time. It might also be helpful for this to include the user talk namespace. Pahunkat ( talk) 21:25, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
@ Ohnoitsjamie and Suffusion of Yellow: Multiple attempts, the last one successful at saving. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Special:AbuseLog&wpSearchUser=172.58.203.179 ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 11:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
There's about 20 requests for filters there, and at least a few seem like useful suggestions. Can some more people take a look at processing some of those requests? ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 08:41, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
First, see my summary of the most recent 50 unique users to trip this filter. Mostly vandalism, a few very aggressive edit warriors, and one weird FP. The only obvious way decrease the possibility of that kind of FP would be to increase the number of edits allowed before the filter trips. I'm willing to do that if anyone is bothered by that FP; the filter will still catch the worst cases.
This is the disallow message I have in mind:
![]() | Slow down!
An automated filter has identified this edit as possibly disruptive, so it has been throttled. This will allow other users, including administrators, time to review your changes. You may still edit talk pages and project pages during this time. If you would still like to save this edit, please wait at least 20 minutes, then click "Publish changes" again. Alternately, you can report this error without waiting. |
Yes, I'm telling people one way to evade the filter! But I think that's fine; this filter should only trip after one or more editors are already aware of the disruption. It's basically just meant to slow them down until an admin looks at WP:AIV or WP:AIV/TB2. Even they aren't reported, they'll probably get bored in that time anyway. And for the FPs, waiting seems preferable to begging for help at EFFP. Suffusion of Yellow ( talk) 20:54, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Not sure is this is the right place to ask, but how to help at edit filters without special permissions like EFH or EFM? Steve M ( talk) 01:43, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
No, I don't like it either. Please comment on the mailing list, if desired. Suffusion of Yellow ( talk) 17:32, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
It's a relatively minor thing, but given that 1060 has been set to disallow shouldn't the filter be renamed to something like "Attempted CSD tag removal by creator" instead of "CSD tag removed by page creator"? Pahunkat ( talk) 19:00, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Obligatory notification; just a boring meme. Suffusion of Yellow ( talk) 03:22, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Standard notification; another boring meme. Suffusion of Yellow ( talk) 16:55, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
(via discord) [5] is an example of the edit that is triggering 1113 as a false-positive. There is a section entitled "List of notable Canadians of Romanian ancestry", but I hope that wouldn't trigger the filter for an edit adding a maintenance tag. My guess is that this is triggering as a false positive since nothing is removed, but I'm certainly not an expert at edit-filters. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 05:14, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
The page ID is 66355661, not 63640560. 83.6.99.89 ( talk) 07:45, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Courtesy notification: per the rules at WP:EFH, I've granted Blablubbs the EFH bit since he is SPI clerk trainee. A bit of IAR here - the rules as written say that the bit should be granted by a CheckUser, and I'm not a CU, but I received permission from TonyBallioni, who is both a CU and Blablubbs's trainer. WP:NOTBURO and all that. GeneralNotability ( talk) 00:28, 23 February 2021 (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.
Per this and section above. EFR seems often backlogged; took around 5 months to implement RfC consensus for Facebook's filter. So offering to help if desired, I guess; have a CS background and experienced at writing regular expressions. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 01:27, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Covid is a mix of -> {{ Gs/editnotice}} and this). The text Rexx is saying proves his views is this unilateral addition, which was disputed by an Arb clerk as far back as June and July. I tried to discuss the deprecation of the template in mid-2020 on the talk, RexxS blocked the change so I let it be (failing to get a clear consensus for it at the time). I sent it to TfD a few months later to get consensus; the outcome was deleted, and that was implemented (not by myself, anyway). I reject that any of that was subverting consensus; I mean the entire thing was literally done at TfD which is a community discussion to gain consensus. I have made no content edits to the COVID editnotice, and my only involvement in that template was to start the TfD nom. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 04:54, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
I think this discussion should get more visibility, maybe a notice at WP:AN or WT:ARBCOM" (which didn't happen). The outcome of that debate was not deletion, as ProcrastinatingReader deceptively claims. This is the pattern of behaviour that ProcrastinatingReader adopts: getting an idea, and then thinking that sparsely-attended discussion represent agreement with the idea, while ignoring any dissenting comments and reading their own interpretation into debates. See how the Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Post-unarchive_break was actually closed. We can't afford to grant sensitive permissions to anyone who will make significant changes without understanding the need for comprehensive prior agreement with those affected. -- RexxS ( talk) 18:31, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
I was unable to undo the blanking/redirection of Bibliography of South America because of a filter warning of links or references running through a local proxy. I am aware that the reason for this error is that the bibliography contains links on EBSCO which need to be fixed. However, the more pressing issue is that the complete blanking and redirection of the page without prior discussion should be reverted. I am unable to do so because of the filter, and I determined this would be the appropriate place to note it. I apologize in advance if this is not the correct place. ― NK1406 03:20, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Standard notice. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1060#Uptick in vandalism on months pages. The vandalism had completely stopped, but picked up again today. Of course this can be merged with another filter later, but it's useful to track it separately for now. Suffusion of Yellow ( talk) 19:27, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Obligatory notice. Just another LTA; logging separately but will likely merge to 906 ( hist · log) once I see what effect the filter has on their behavior. Suffusion of Yellow ( talk) 20:29, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Can we improve Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested/Header somewhat? My proposal is at User:ProcrastinatingReader/sandbox9. Contains various changes from observing EFR over a period of time, and (now) having some experience of seeing requests through the lens of an EFM:
ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 13:40, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
The edit filter is primarily used to address common patterns of harmful editing.I think
Edit filters areprimarily used to address common patterns of harmful editing.might be better, since technically its one system but there are multiple filters. It also feels a bit odd to establish the edit filter and then have people ask for a new one.
please consider emailing the edit filter mailing list at wikipedia-en-editfilters@lists.wikimedia.org. I feel like the wording could be changed here to something stronger. Asartea Talk | Contribs 09:43, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
where there's a reasonable suspicion that the LTA is technically proficient. I really don't like it when people say publicly "Can you create a filter to stop the LTA who says 'Ni'?" because if they find EFR, they are now the LTA who until recently said "Ni". It's not only a question of technical proficiency; even if they can't read regex, they can still read the plain English description that filter-requestor "helpfully" provided at EFR. Suffusion of Yellow ( talk) 21:35, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
consider emailingto
I noticed an IP added a non-existent template to an article page. I think there should be an abuse filter for that to warn new editors about it.
What it may look like:
![]() | This template does not seem to exist! An automated filter has detected that you are adding a template that does not exist on the wiki. Please verify that you spelled the name of the template you are trying to add correctly, and, if in doubt, please ask for help at the help desk. If this template does exist, then you may ignore this message and press Save directly. |
And for sandbox templates:
![]() | Warning: An automated filter has detected that you are adding a sandbox template to an article. Please make sure that you have removed the "/sandbox" suffix from the template before saving. If you believe you are seeing this message in error, please report it here. |
Aasim ( talk) 07:44, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
See the mailing list. Suffusion of Yellow ( talk) 23:15, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
A few new user scripts that I hope will be useful for EFMs:
Suffusion of Yellow ( talk) 20:34, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
There is some problem with it please see [6] Shrike ( talk) 07:41, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Badtitle/ApiErrorFormatter::getDummyTitle
reads like a PHP class and method name. Probably unrelated to anything onwiki and more something related to MediaWiki. In particular, it seems like it can't read {{BASEPAGENAME}}
on
MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning-DS. Best to file a phab ticket.
ProcrastinatingReader (
talk)
13:25, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
{{#ifexpr:{{In string|{{BASEPAGENAME}}|Badtitle}}|simple message|fancy message}}
(untested) might make the message less ugly, at least.
Suffusion of Yellow (
talk)
23:29, 5 April 2021 (UTC)I've noticed vandals either replacing infobox names with "DaBaby" or randomly adding "DaBaby" to an article, is there already a filter that catches these edits? And if not, could one be created or modified to include this? Thanks. Deauthorized. ( talk) 15:26, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
(ping relevant admins) @ Reaper Eternal, Zzuuzz, Oshwah, and EdJohnston: I've set up a filter at Special:AbuseFilter/1148 that should hopefully prevent the recent user talk disruption. I'm testing it now to make sure there aren't false positives, but if you've noticed any patterns or see edits slip through in the future, feel free to email me or the edit filter mailing list (I can't find the email or remember it, anyone who does feel free to replace this with the answer) — Wug· a·po·des 22:19, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Obligatory notice. Just another boring meme. Suffusion of Yellow ( talk) 01:01, 17 May 2021 (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 request to have the EFH right so that I can view private filters (& logs) to aid in my effort of cleaning up vandalism/spam by certain LTAs in smaller wikis or where I have access to admin tools. I believe that having the access will actually help me to identify them more efficiently. -- Minorax ( talk) 13:21, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Must also meet at least one of these criteria:
I created all these filters, but I'm not even looking at the log anymore. Unless anyone objects I'm going to disable filters 1047 and 1113, and try to create something out of 1111 that only looks at disambiguation pages. Will anyone miss these filters? Suffusion of Yellow ( talk) 20:05, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
I saw edits tagged as "review edit", which I didn't remember having seen before. I suspected it was an editing tool I wasn't familiar with (à la "Mobile edit", "Visual edit", etc.), so I was surprised to learn that it just tagged certain IP ranges. Couldn't we use a more descriptive, or at least less counterintuitive, name? Nardog ( talk) 04:42, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
possible disruption
tag; that tag has a label, "review edit" which certainly sounds less ABF - that label can be updated here:
MediaWiki:Tag-Possible disruption. That filter was supposed to be 'temporary' from 5 years ago - so a better question would be: is anyone actually patrolling based on these tags anymore? —
xaosflux
Talk
13:39, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Is 899 now redundant to 869, since the latter is now set to warn? ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 14:04, 19 June 2021 (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'd like to request access to the EFH privilege, thank you in advance to whoever oversees this!
I also meet one of the four required criteria, which is that I am a "currently-active extended confirmed editor on the English Wikipedia (i.e. has made edits or logged actions within the last 12 months)". Patient Zero talk 00:27, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
If a filter is created that uses a loose condition (that usually would cause too many issues) but uses ip_in_range
(
doc) to narrow this down to prevent FPs, would that be tantamount to an IP block? Just wondering if it's in my remit to do. A normal IP block would, also, be too wide.
ProcrastinatingReader (
talk)
10:59, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
I've re-set 1106 ( hist · log) "Caliphate disruption" to disallow, with a few tweaks to reduce false positives, following a resurgence of WP:CALIPH disruption and complaints at ANI. I'm running a parallel public log-only filter at 1108 ( hist · log) to monitor any related non-caught disruption. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:23, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
First step will be to create MediaWiki:Abusefilter-disallowed-WPWP with the appropriate page content (that has to be done by an admin). Or just create it to transclude a TE-protected template. That'll be for the throttle. I'm still figuring out the best way to implement 2.1. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 15:21, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
LTA filter 1160 set to throttle/disallow. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 16:24, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
I request the Edit filter helper for to view the private filters, this because I have problems for to report spambots with a single edition and I cannot assure you that the filters activated by those accounts are by improper promotional activity. I am Edit filter in eswiki, I read the policy and I want to help in this area. Regards Ruy ( talk) 13:50, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Can we disable or merge 554 into 869 / 894 / 1045 (as/if appropriate), or add to revert bot / spam blacklist? It seems a bit extreme to disallow these sources, which is stronger than we even do to deprecated ones, and they don't seem to have been subject to RSN discussions so aren't deprecated per se. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 19:31, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
I don't know if this is the right place to request filter changes, but if so would someone mind tweaking Filter 1159? Suggested changes are mocked up here. Wanting to broaden the namespace so talkpages are included, and add another common term associated with this particular run of vandalism. Pinging ProcrastinatingReader whom created the filter. Thanks, -- Jack Frost ( talk) 08:00, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
I suggested this in a thread over at VPPROP: would a filter tracking non-EC edits which add images to templates be useful? Even if we up protection of templates, there will still be a gap in our protection that we will need to monitor, which is why I think this might be useful. I can't imagine why adding an image to a template would be particularly useful in most cases, and they probably warrant additional scrutiny anyway. Before working on this, do others think this is a good idea? — Wug· a·po·des 00:35, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Don't remember which specific filter it is, but I know there is a filter that is blocking various additions of "Your Mom" and related vandalism. I think whichever filter does this should be extended to account creations if possible, i.e. in order to prevent usernames like this from being registered. Taking Out The Trash ( talk) 15:35, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
Regarding Special:AbuseFilter/1139, @ ProcrastinatingReader: following up from AN. Having a filter that requires checking every edit for a static list of text usernames in the filter is something I think is a horrible idea for so many reasons. It is creating a parallel blocking system with estoteric logging, requires admins to manually edit filters, not to mention the overhead and sustainability of having freeform text usernames that would need to grow and grow. There have GOT to be better solutions to the problem this is trying to solve? — xaosflux Talk 16:04, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
user_blocked
but I don't know whether the filter checks run before the check for whether the user is blocked. I'd suspect yes, since the variable exists; would have to test.
ProcrastinatingReader (
talk)
17:59, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
user_blocked
even exists, then...
ProcrastinatingReader (
talk)
00:20, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
I've noticed for several days that this user has attempted to link their global account locally to enwiki, but keeps getting blocked by a disallowing private filter for "LTA Username/Impersonation creations". They have a global account and don't appear to be blocked anywhere, so I'd appreciate som eyes on this to try and figure out what's going on. Taking Out The Trash ( talk) 18:36, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Adding this template as I just saw the same thing yet again. Someone really needs to look into what is going on here. Taking Out The Trash ( talk) 18:15, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Not sure if this is technically possible, but if so, would it be a good idea to create a filter in that warns (and possibly tags) when someone creates a new article that is a BLP without sources? I know there are already filters that tag edits that add unsourced information to preexisting BLPs, which is a good start, but having a filter to warn users that BLPs are required to have at least one source upon creation might be benifical. The number of articles that I've had to BLPPROD as of lately is starting to become a bit staggering. Ping for reference @ MusikAnimal: @ Suffusion of Yellow: @ ProcrastinatingReader: Taking Out The Trash ( talk) 20:13, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
I saw 1076 got triggered for this move, but I don't think that was intended? The article was moved from draftspace just today and moved back rather quickly. Isn't the filter for when an article from mainspace gets moved into draftspace for the first time? – MJL ‐Talk‐ ☖ 03:48, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Round 2 proposal by SoY to edit MediaWiki:Abusefilter-disallowed:
Standard disallow message:
![]() | An automated filter has identified this edit as potentially unconstructive, so it has been disallowed. If this edit is constructive, please
report this error. Disruptive behavior may result in being
blocked from editing.
|
Proposed new message:
![]() | Your changes have not been published. In response to an ongoing pattern of abuse, an automated filter has prevented this edit. Don't worry, your work has not been lost! The full content of this edit has been saved, but it will not be visible to readers unless you take further action. Please go the report page and follow the instructions. An experienced editor will review your changes, and provide assistance. |
As far as I can tell, SoY's proposal had consensus in round 2, although we didn't get to implementation. Is that a correct reading of the discussion? Having seen some FPs, and had my own frustrations (to put it mildly) when bugs in editing tools cause my entire edit to disappear and having to rewrite it again, I really think this change (and its associated reassurance) is needed. It's also a clearer message in general. Pinging previous contributors: @ Suffusion of Yellow, MusikAnimal, Newslinger, OhKayeSierra, Awesome Aasim, Enterprisey, Xaosflux, and DannyS712 -- are we good to implement this change? ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 16:16, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
I floated this idea for a new EF on the WP:DISCORD and was recommended to suggest it on-wiki: could there be something to mark IPs/new (non-AC) accounts adding redlinks to forename or surname set index articles (e.g. Diver (surname), presumably articles with the {{surname}} template or in Category:Lists of people by given name / Category:Given names)? I've ended up on several of these recently, and it seems that this is not uncommon and usually just someone adding themselves to the list. Thanks, eviolite (talk) 19:04, 15 September 2021 (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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 13 |
for detecting draft articles that already exist in mainspace? If there isn't, I think that would be a good filter to block page creations of draft articles in namespace. A a s i m 20:15, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
new_html
, and that would probably specifically involve any edit introducing the {{
Draft article}}
template, since that template can say, "There is a Wikipedia article named <a href..." --
zzuuzz
(talk)
22:58, 27 August 2020 (UTC)First, the current situation:
Filter | Description | Namespaces checked | Groups excluded | Summaries excluded | Deletion tags excluded |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
869 ( hist · log) | Adding deprecated source to articles | (Article), Draft | bot | ^(Revert|rv|Undid) |
no |
891 ( hist · log) | Predatory open access journals | (Article), User, Template, Draft | (none) | (none) | no |
894 ( hist · log) | Self-Published Sources | (Article), Draft | bot | AFCH |
no |
1034 ( hist · log) | WikiLeaks | (Article), Talk, Draft | bot | ^(Revert|rv|Undid) |
no |
1045 ( hist · log) | Self-published (blog / web host) | (Article), Draft | bot | AFCH|WP:TW |
yes |
1057 ( hist · log) | Citing Wikipedia | (Article), Draft | extendedconfirmed, sysop, bot | (none) | n/a |
I'd like to make this more consistent:
^(Revert|rv|Undid)|AFCH|WP:TW|reFill
from all the filters. Why reFill? Well, the source was already on the page; it just wasn't detectable until it was filled in. We shouldn't be warning people for fixing bare URLs, even if the URLs point to crappy sources.^(Revert|rv|Undid)|AFCH|WP:TW|reFill
. This will be a bit of pain to update, but it's not a disaster if it falls behind. Pinging @ JzG, Newslinger, and Headbomb: for thoughts. Suffusion of Yellow ( talk) 20:35, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Grabbing data of the earlier revision: ⧼abusefilter-warning-predatory⧽
.
Suffusion of Yellow (
talk)
22:29, 26 August 2020 (UTC)I think that filter 733 should prevent the user from performing the action in question. I don't see any situation where new users creating pages in other editors userspace are necessary. This should be done to prevent the attacks of vandals like this. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 17:55, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I'm from ckbwiki. I want to know how filter 135 works? I have just added my own language letters to the filter, but today I found out that the filter has rejected several good edits! How many times has a letter repeated? I did some tests and found out that every double-repeated letter would catch by the filter, am i right? Thanks! ⇒ Aram Talk 22:08, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi! I added The Sun to an article in my sandbox and got no warning; and when I pasted the article into Mainspace a vague warning that *some* link was deprecated (out of the 20+ I was using) but it didn’t tell me which one.
I’m hoping both these issues can be addressed. Gleeanon409 ( talk) 04:18, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Please see the notes. I'm not setting to disallow now, but if this turns out to be needed, it's there. Or should this be done now, per WP:UCS? Nothing has happened yet, but people are people. Should this be set to disallow right now, per IAR? Yes there will be FPs. If you have any suggested tweaks, please email the list. Suffusion of Yellow ( talk) 00:21, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Just cleaned up a bunch of those. This one should be edit filtered, not sure which. Possibly 894 . Its uses are almost exclusively fringe. There are occasional exceptions, but they are exceedingly rare. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 02:24, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi folks,
Something that has bugged me for a long time: it's really hard to examine what parts of a regex matched a given edit (when, say, trying to see which filter conditions were met for one of our big LTA filters). I would like to write a small userscript that, given a specific edit filter hit, will load the regex(es) and input data into a third-party regex tester, currently looking at regex101.com (let's be honest - odds are, most of our private filters have been tested on one of those at some point). I've looked at their privacy policy, the testing is all client-side and stuff only gets saved to their servers if you explicitly click the save button. The biggest source of a potential information leak is the URL itself, since the preload is done with URL params (i.e. https://regex101.com/?regex=something&text=somethingelse). Since the site uses https, the regex would be stored in the server's logs but wouldn't be visible to anyone else. The question: is that acceptable to edit filter folks, or is that too much of a potential leak? Personally I think it's a reasonable trade (assuming that the website isn't run by an LTA), but I wanted to ask for other folks' opinions before proceeding. If people do think it is a risk, I will still write the script, but will put in a safeguard to prevent it from sending private filter data off-wiki. GeneralNotability ( talk) 01:45, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
On the page Hypatia, there is an IP vandal (not autoconfirmed) making edits that would normally be disallowed by the edit filter. The first edit, [1], the IP made involved persistent repeating characters and possibly nonsense characters that are normally disallowed under filters 135 and 231. The IP has made another edit [2] that I believe would normally be disallowed under filter 680 because it contained Emoji unicode characters. All three filters disallow such edits to prevent vandalism from occurring, and if the filters are broken then the vandalism which wastes other editors time just appears and possibly renders the edit filters useless. Can you please explain how and why these IPs bypassed such filters? Thanks. Train of Knowledge ( Talk) 22:33, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
!(new_wikitext irlike "astro|category:unicode blocks")
and the wikitext does contain "astro" (as "astronomy")...maybe that's it.
King of Hearts, that appears to be your addition, so pinging you. It's entirely possible that we see so little vandalism like this that it's not worth fixing.
GeneralNotability (
talk)
23:31, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
I was wondering if it is possible to have a filter on non-XCON editors that reminds editors of our non-free image usage policy? The message could be something like:
![]() | An automated filter has detected that you are attempting to upload a high-resolution non-free image to Wikipedia. Per our image usage policy, we require non-free images to be of a low-enough resolution in order to satisfy our non-free content criteria with a guideline of 100,000 pixel maximum. If you understand the details of the non-free content criteria and believe this image is of sufficient low resolution, feel free to click "Ignore any warnings" and submit your upload. If you believe you are seeing this message in error, please let us know. |
Such a filter would be useful to get new users to compress their non-free images. I just stumbled across an image by a seemingly new editor that was of too high a resolution. A a s i m 16:54, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
![]() | You are seeing this message because an automated filter has detected that you are attempting to upload a high-resolution image to Wikipedia.
|
A a s i m 17:18, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
(action='stashupload' | action='upload') && (file_width * file_height > 100000)
A
a
s
i
m
17:27, 16 September 2020 (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 would like to have access to abuse filters logs (many are private, for obvious reasons) as they would help to respond to my work on false positives. I am specifically interested in abusefilter-log-private
permission and I intend to use them only in filters (
247,
354,
466,
793,
1001,
1053,
1074, others that may be useful
34,
397,
739,
768,
1032) mainly to respond false positives, and export to other wikis. I've configure (
11) and create new (
19) two abuse filters for
bnwiki. I think abuse filters logs of this private filters can be of great help, and to access them I need to be a edit filter manager or abuse filter helper, so I make this request. I have no intention of using this permission for anything other than abuse filters. Thanks for consideration, and open for questions. Warm Regards,
ZI Jony
(Talk)
13:15, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
and export to other wikis. Only slightly, since none of the filters mentioned are LTA filters, but still - I trust the editor meant they would consult with EFMs first. Otherwise at a very quick glance no apparent issues or indication would abuse, but not the strongest use case either; relatively neutral. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 14:17, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
The only awarding of EFM I recall in recent to a non-administrator is to Headbomb (nearly a year agoThe most recent was actually EEng, I believe. Although slightly shortlived, if he asked for it here it'd likely be approved. As I said somewhere where a discussion over IA happened, people are way too picky about both of those rights. Not saying this candidate should have them, but both the fear-mongering over IA and the fear-mongering over EFM are highly overrated. "Demonstration of need" should be put back into context. By current standards, your example of Suffursion of Yellow (who asked for EFH for false positives, and EFM), as well as Danny would not be EFM/EFHs. There are IAs with the permission with less technical competence than many other admins, and non-admins gadget maintainers. Perspective helps. There is, realistically, minimal more harm an EFM can do than an EFH. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 01:14, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
The current conditions are:
equals_to_any( page_namespace, 0, 2, 118 ) & (
stringy := "{{\s*([Cc]opyvio/?core|[Cc]opyvio-revdel|[Rr]evdel).*}}";
removed_lines rlike stringy &
!(added_lines rlike stringy) &
!contains_any(user_groups, "sysop", "patroller")
)
However, sometimes the copyvio template will span multiple lines, and its removal thus won't be caught, or switching it from one line to multiple will trigger a false positive (example: Special:Diff/980529995). I suggest changing it to
equals_to_any( page_namespace, 0, 2, 118 ) & (
stringy := "{{([Cc]opyvio/?core|[Cc]opyvio-revdel|[Rr]evdel).*}}";
rmwhitespace( removed_lines ) rlike stringy &
!( rmwhitespace( added_lines ) rlike stringy) &
!contains_any(user_groups, "sysop", "patroller")
)
which would remove whitespace from the diff before processing (and also remove the \s*
since that matches any whitespace, which wouldn't be needed).
Testing with User:Suffusion of Yellow/batchtest-plus against prior hits to this filter showed a couple other cases where the new filter wouldn't match but the old one did. They all appear to have been false positives, except for
This change would also catch more removals, eg if the template on the page was only multiple lines and then removed.
Thanks, -- DannyS712 ( talk) 18:34, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
added_lines
. See
phab:T176291.
Suffusion of Yellow (
talk)
17:34, 8 October 2020 (UTC)Just noting that I've created this as an emergency filter, as it looks like we have someone running a bot (or working really fast) to vandalize high-profile pages. See the list of accounts in the notes, each of which got to around 50 edits before being blocked. I tested a different version of this on 1013 ( hist · log), and I'm fairly confident that there will be few false positives. Set to log-only if needed. Suffusion of Yellow ( talk) 06:09, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello, May I request an edit filter helper to check my expanding on the page "Mrs.Gould's sunbird"? The filter seems automatically identified my work as unconstructive. I do what to know what is not good enough and I can fix it. Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DPB0976 ( talk • contribs) 07:20, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Probably of interest to the edit filter community: phab:T263024. Short version: the plan is to remove the rmwhitespace() behavior from rmspecials(), if you want that to be a part of your filter's behavior you can do rmwhitespace(rmspecials()), which should have the same behavior both before and after this change. GeneralNotability ( talk) 17:01, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
I noticed in the filter log for this user that there is a private edit filter brazenly titled "Catch the Loser LTA". Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but I thought that to prevent provoking investigation into circumvention that we don't describe private filters after the user they're meant to catch?
Apologies if discussing a private filter's public description is out of scope for this noticeboard. If so, I'll email instead.
Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. ( Contact me | Contributions). 04:15, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
For anyone who missed it, from the recent Tech News:
rmspecials()
function will be updated soon so that it does not remove the "space" character. Wikis are advised to wrap all the uses of rmspecials()
with rmwhitespace()
wherever necessary to keep filters' behavior unchanged. You can use the search function on
Special:AbuseFilter to locate its usage. (
Phab ticket)E Eng 18:07, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
I made this userbox for anyone who identifies vandalism/disruptive editing through the Edit filter log such as myself. Jerm ( talk) 18:06, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Wikitext | userbox | where used | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
{{
User wikipedia/Abuse log}}
|
|
linked pages |
Same LTA as another filter (see the notes). Yes, it looks overly broad at first glance, but check the actions closely. Suffusion of Yellow ( talk) 17:18, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
Currently, filter 1084 catches non-free image uploads of at least 120,000 pixels without a reduction request. I suggest lowering that to 105,000 in line with Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/JJMC89 bot 19. Ntx61 ( talk) 07:47, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Just a simple question, I hope: Is there a technique for using the filter log just to search for and generate a list of a specific user's edits? Thanks! Pasdecomplot ( talk) 19:49, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
user_name == 'Pasdecomplot'
), however on enwiki it's considered too inefficient to do this. --
zzuuzz
(talk)
19:59, 5 November 2020 (UTC)Hello, I submitted a false positive report concerning my post at Talk:List of youngest birth mothers, but it displays the wrong IP address, page(s), and timestamp. I hope it is not overlooked due to this error. 144.96.41.37 ( talk) 12:39, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Re-enabled. Add to the first line as needed. See the mailing list for more details. Suffusion of Yellow ( talk) 20:43, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello! I would like to request the Edit Filter Helper permission, to:
I've engaged in some prior discussion of filter development (admittedly not much), and have EFFPR on my watchlist, which I check on whenever I'm not doing some other task. Currently interested in developing a filter to help catch corporate spam (likely just as a tagging filter), and, as mentioned, helping at EFFPR. Thanks for considering the request, — moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 19:29, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
So I recently tripped an edit filter and with edit summary reminder enabled, if I submit it without an edit summary the edit filter warning appears again, leading to a loop (EF warning -> summary reminder -> EF warning -> summary reminder) and so on. The only way I could escape this is entering an edit summary. Is this a known issue or what? FMecha ( to talk| to see log) 06:06, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Does edit filter 320 have an exemption for Maternal insult and other similar pages? Thanks for your time. Opal|zukor( discuss) 13:36, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Deferred Changes has been mentioned many times in these archives, most recently by me in June. enwiki passed it in WP:DC2016. It would allow edit filters to queue edits for review. We're still stuck on the technical implementation. As a result, perhaps the following Community Wishlist item will be of interest to talk page watchers: m:Community Wishlist Survey 2021/Admins and patrollers/Implement deferred changes. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 00:46, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Reviving an idea from back in January. I think we should use a friendlier message for some filters. I won't repeat all the arguments made in that thread, but basically:
Standard disallow message:
![]() | An automated filter has identified this edit as potentially unconstructive, so it has been disallowed. If this edit is constructive, please
report this error. Disruptive behavior may result in being
blocked from editing.
|
Proposed new message:
![]() | Your changes have not been published. In response to an ongoing pattern of abuse, an automated filter has prevented this edit. Don't worry, your work has not been lost! The full content of this edit has been saved, but it will not be visible to readers unless you take further action. Please go the report page and follow the instructions. An experienced editor will review your changes, and provide assistance. |
The previous discussion got bogged down in the question of whether we should use this message for LTAs only, or for general vandalism filters also. Let's start with some of the LTA filters, and go from there. Suffusion of Yellow ( talk) 21:11, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
![]() | Please double check your edit. An automated filter has identified potential problems with your edit, such as broken wiki markup. If you only meant to experiment, please use the sandbox for that. If you do not see any potential problems with your edit, click Publish changes to save it, leaving a detailed description in the edit summary explaining what you are doing, and, if you have any questions, feel free to reach out to our help desk. |
potential problemsis a new user (who is ignorant of 99% of our policies and 100% of our MOS) supposed to look for? Suffusion of Yellow ( talk) 02:11, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Can we adjust 602 to also flag usages of {{ Ds/aware}} (insertion and removal)? Reason being that currently system logs don't flag it, so when filing a WP:AE report one has to dig the page history (or use WikiBlame) to find an inserting edit. Similarly, if it's removed (but was present at time of problematic diffs) one may not realise the person was aware at the time. Example case is this current AE case, with this log. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 16:32, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
IP address has used the term "bruv" on the page John O. Bennett. I know that the phrase Bruh is disallowed through 614, but the term Bruv which is also used in vandalism trends is similarly used (especially by IPs and newly registered users wishing to circumvent the filter). Can you please add Bruv to 614? Thanks. Train of Knowledge ( Talk) 23:03, 3 December 2020 (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.
Previous participants (no closing administrator pinged due to withdrawl in previous request): @ Nihlus:
Hello all. So, I'd like to cut to the point. I'm requesting, for the 4th time, edit filter helper. I have a few reasons, so let me just explain them here, along with my analysis of the requirements to be granted the userright.
Demonstrated need for access (e.g. SPI clerk, involvement with edit filters)
No recent blocks or relevant sanctions.
At least basic understanding of account security.
At least basic understanding of regular expressions if the intent is to assist with authoring filters.
Sufficient ability with the English language to understand notes and explanations for edit filters.
I realize that the previous 3 requests are possibly one of the big concerns that may be brought up. If it is found appropriate, I would like to offer that I be given a temporary grant of the userright, so that my contributions with the userright, may be evaluated after I am given the time to gain the sufficient experience that has been mentioned by Nihlus in my previous request.
Please let me know if you have any questions. I'd be happy to answer. Thanks. EggRoll97 ( talk) 05:44, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Spitballing: maybe we could have a "sponsoring" approach instead? Instead of the usual !vote, a current EFH/EFM can put a candidate forward and say "I trust them and think they'd benefit from having the permission" and the candidate is presumed to be suitable unless someone brings up a significant concern. Again, just writing off the top of my head here.Basically edit Wikipedia:Edit_filter_helper#Process_for_requesting so that CUs can give this out as they do, or an EFM can give it out to someone they trust. If that's too far, perhaps keep it a discussion but make it a nomination-only process so that self-noms aren't permitted, and a request has to be submitted by an EFM?
Just started Wikipedia talk:Edit filter helper#Nomination requirement?; thoughts welcome. Enterprisey ( talk!) 05:20, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Noticed 712 exists whilst reviewing Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BattyBot 53. Could we change this filter to also track changes in death date, not just birth date? Pinging Galobtter & Rich Farmbrough who may have interest in doing this (or anyone else!). Thanks, ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 20:23, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
facebook|twitter|instagram|
to facebook|fb|twitter|instagram|ig|
me|us
to me|us|him|her|them
page_namespace == 0
to equals_to_any(page_namespace, 0, 2)
.Perryprog ( talk) 22:00, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm also wondering if this filter could be generalized a little bit more, although that could, of course, lead to more false positives. Maybe something like checking for added text of one of the sites and a separate check for anything that looks like a social media handle, probably in the same line. This could potentially catch a wider range of situations like "Their insta: @foobar". (I'm not totally sure what the idiomatic way of implementing that would be, though.) Perryprog ( talk) 22:12, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Sorry for posting this in the wrong place; I was under the impression that EFR was for requesting new filters—its header only seems to mention requesting new filters, so it wasn't very obvious where to post this. Perryprog ( talk) 22:54, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Related to some recent discussions about the bar for entry for EFH, phab:T242821 proposes splitting the right to use the testing interface to be separate from the right to view private filters. -- DannyS712 ( talk) 22:15, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
I believe that the Wikileaks filter is misleading. The description at Special:Tags says "This edit added a deprecated source. Deprecated sources are not usually appropriate for Wikipedia articles" however Wikileaks is not a deprecated source (it's classified as generally unreliable and the consensus is that "It may be appropriate to cite a document from WikiLeaks as a primary source, but only if it is discussed by a reliable source"). Due to the tag wording users who see edits tagged by this filter revert such edits thinking it's a deprecated source.
Please note that we already have a filter for true deprecated sources. As far as I can tell there is no tag for unreliable sources - as many of them have certain legitimate uses - so the wikileaks filter should be deactivated for now. I'm not against marking generally unreliable sources but it should be a community decision and it should be applied to all of them rather than selectively. Alaexis ¿question? 21:59, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
@ Thryduulf: A new tag is created when a filter is saved with a non-existent tag. I have done so.
Two more steps, admin-only:
As to your other question, Alaexis, I think it was a WP:BOLD move by JzG but I could be mistaken. Suffusion of Yellow ( talk) 20:22, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
CaptainEek semi-protected this for a day, I brought it up on their talk page, but they seem to have gone offline mid-conversation. This protection makes no sense. The vast majority of filters start with !("confirmed" in user_groups)
. There's no point in having this page, if it's protected. I'm nervous now to update 1112; a serious mistake could cause a flood of FPs to disappear into the bigger flood of bad edits. BS reports can be removed without comment.
Also can someone answer my request at MediaWiki talk:Abusefilter-disallowed-1112? The new message might cut down on bad reports. If it makes it worse, I'll switch back to the default. Suffusion of Yellow ( talk) 00:16, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
See this AN/I thread for context. -- C o r t e x 💬talk 22:53, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
^\*\s*(?:\[\[)?\w+ \w+
since they're usually bulleted items followed by a first and last name. —
MusikAnimal
talk
02:53, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
This is flooding in at an absurd rate. The filter is not perfect, but it should hopefully be only a few days before the TikTok kids move on to the Nose Bean Challenge or whatever. Should there a be custom warning? On the one hand there will be some innocent users who don't know about WP:N etc.. On the other, I don't want to tell people how to avoid the filter. Suffusion of Yellow ( talk) 23:35, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
This is ridiculous. 50 saved changes in last hour in spite of the warning, with only a few FPs. I've set the 1112 to disallow, but it shouldn't be left that way longer than necessary, unless someone can reduce FPs more. Suffusion of Yellow ( talk) 22:17, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() | An automated filter has identified a problem with this edit, so it has been disallowed.
Please do not add yourself, your friends, or your relatives to lists of notable people. Do not add anyone else, unless your edit can be supported by multiple reliable sources. Social media sites are not reliable sources. If you were not adding a name to a list, please report this error and another editor will provide assistance. If you were adding a name to a list, please go the same page, but be sure to provide reliable sources backing up your claim. Unsourced requests, or requests sourced to social media, will be ignored or removed. |
Can I just remove reports from EF/FP or request immediate archiving? Quite a few of these editors who've been stopped for the right reasons by the filter are posting reports that will obviously have no action. Pahunkat ( talk) 21:16, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
This may not be the correct place to post this, however I noticed recently that reverting an edit will erroneously trigger edit filter 686. Link.
I don't see any explicit check for a reverted edit in Extension:AbuseFilter but something like this could be used:
!"confirmed" in user_groups &
page_namespace == 0 &
old_wikitext rlike "Category:Living people" &
edit_delta > 200 & !added_lines rlike "\|-" &
rcount ("<ref\b|http|[Ii]nfobox", added_lines) <= rcount ("<ref\b|http|[Ii]nfobox", removed_lines) &
!summary contains "(Undid revision "
It's a quick fix and there's almost certainly a better way to do it, so someone smarter than me ought to figure it out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catalyzzt ( talk • contribs)
Hi, wanted to mention how useful the "CSD tag removed by page creator" tag is when wading through a watchlist. If there are any plans on reopening that discussion from last May about setting it to disallow then I would be in support of that! (Doesn't seem like anyone was really opposed to it) – Thjarkur (talk) 22:49, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
— Special:Permalink/1002340365
As Thjarkur has reminded me on my talk page: Any objections to setting filter 1060 to disallow?
Proposed disallow message: MediaWiki:Abusefilter-disallowed-remove-csd.
![]() | An
automated filter has identified that you are attempting to remove a deletion notice from a page that you have created.
The creator of a page may not remove a speedy deletion tag from it. If you created this page and you disagree with the given reason for deletion, please go to the talk page and leave a message explaining why you believe it should not be deleted. You can also visit the talk page to check if you have received a response to your message. If you believe you received this message in error, you may report this error. |
~ ToBeFree ( talk) 02:31, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
{{TALKPAGENAME}}
instead of
Help:Talk pages?
Suffusion of Yellow (
talk)
04:06, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Done
~ ToBeFree (
talk)
08:41, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
I was wondering if filter 733 could be set to disallow. This is because there's not really any reason for a new user to create a page in someone else's userspace, and also to stop the LTA Evlekis who attacks like that all the time. It might also be helpful for this to include the user talk namespace. Pahunkat ( talk) 21:25, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
@ Ohnoitsjamie and Suffusion of Yellow: Multiple attempts, the last one successful at saving. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Special:AbuseLog&wpSearchUser=172.58.203.179 ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 11:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
There's about 20 requests for filters there, and at least a few seem like useful suggestions. Can some more people take a look at processing some of those requests? ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 08:41, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
First, see my summary of the most recent 50 unique users to trip this filter. Mostly vandalism, a few very aggressive edit warriors, and one weird FP. The only obvious way decrease the possibility of that kind of FP would be to increase the number of edits allowed before the filter trips. I'm willing to do that if anyone is bothered by that FP; the filter will still catch the worst cases.
This is the disallow message I have in mind:
![]() | Slow down!
An automated filter has identified this edit as possibly disruptive, so it has been throttled. This will allow other users, including administrators, time to review your changes. You may still edit talk pages and project pages during this time. If you would still like to save this edit, please wait at least 20 minutes, then click "Publish changes" again. Alternately, you can report this error without waiting. |
Yes, I'm telling people one way to evade the filter! But I think that's fine; this filter should only trip after one or more editors are already aware of the disruption. It's basically just meant to slow them down until an admin looks at WP:AIV or WP:AIV/TB2. Even they aren't reported, they'll probably get bored in that time anyway. And for the FPs, waiting seems preferable to begging for help at EFFP. Suffusion of Yellow ( talk) 20:54, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Not sure is this is the right place to ask, but how to help at edit filters without special permissions like EFH or EFM? Steve M ( talk) 01:43, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
No, I don't like it either. Please comment on the mailing list, if desired. Suffusion of Yellow ( talk) 17:32, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
It's a relatively minor thing, but given that 1060 has been set to disallow shouldn't the filter be renamed to something like "Attempted CSD tag removal by creator" instead of "CSD tag removed by page creator"? Pahunkat ( talk) 19:00, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Obligatory notification; just a boring meme. Suffusion of Yellow ( talk) 03:22, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Standard notification; another boring meme. Suffusion of Yellow ( talk) 16:55, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
(via discord) [5] is an example of the edit that is triggering 1113 as a false-positive. There is a section entitled "List of notable Canadians of Romanian ancestry", but I hope that wouldn't trigger the filter for an edit adding a maintenance tag. My guess is that this is triggering as a false positive since nothing is removed, but I'm certainly not an expert at edit-filters. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 05:14, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
The page ID is 66355661, not 63640560. 83.6.99.89 ( talk) 07:45, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Courtesy notification: per the rules at WP:EFH, I've granted Blablubbs the EFH bit since he is SPI clerk trainee. A bit of IAR here - the rules as written say that the bit should be granted by a CheckUser, and I'm not a CU, but I received permission from TonyBallioni, who is both a CU and Blablubbs's trainer. WP:NOTBURO and all that. GeneralNotability ( talk) 00:28, 23 February 2021 (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.
Per this and section above. EFR seems often backlogged; took around 5 months to implement RfC consensus for Facebook's filter. So offering to help if desired, I guess; have a CS background and experienced at writing regular expressions. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 01:27, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Covid is a mix of -> {{ Gs/editnotice}} and this). The text Rexx is saying proves his views is this unilateral addition, which was disputed by an Arb clerk as far back as June and July. I tried to discuss the deprecation of the template in mid-2020 on the talk, RexxS blocked the change so I let it be (failing to get a clear consensus for it at the time). I sent it to TfD a few months later to get consensus; the outcome was deleted, and that was implemented (not by myself, anyway). I reject that any of that was subverting consensus; I mean the entire thing was literally done at TfD which is a community discussion to gain consensus. I have made no content edits to the COVID editnotice, and my only involvement in that template was to start the TfD nom. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 04:54, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
I think this discussion should get more visibility, maybe a notice at WP:AN or WT:ARBCOM" (which didn't happen). The outcome of that debate was not deletion, as ProcrastinatingReader deceptively claims. This is the pattern of behaviour that ProcrastinatingReader adopts: getting an idea, and then thinking that sparsely-attended discussion represent agreement with the idea, while ignoring any dissenting comments and reading their own interpretation into debates. See how the Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Post-unarchive_break was actually closed. We can't afford to grant sensitive permissions to anyone who will make significant changes without understanding the need for comprehensive prior agreement with those affected. -- RexxS ( talk) 18:31, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
I was unable to undo the blanking/redirection of Bibliography of South America because of a filter warning of links or references running through a local proxy. I am aware that the reason for this error is that the bibliography contains links on EBSCO which need to be fixed. However, the more pressing issue is that the complete blanking and redirection of the page without prior discussion should be reverted. I am unable to do so because of the filter, and I determined this would be the appropriate place to note it. I apologize in advance if this is not the correct place. ― NK1406 03:20, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Standard notice. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1060#Uptick in vandalism on months pages. The vandalism had completely stopped, but picked up again today. Of course this can be merged with another filter later, but it's useful to track it separately for now. Suffusion of Yellow ( talk) 19:27, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Obligatory notice. Just another LTA; logging separately but will likely merge to 906 ( hist · log) once I see what effect the filter has on their behavior. Suffusion of Yellow ( talk) 20:29, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Can we improve Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested/Header somewhat? My proposal is at User:ProcrastinatingReader/sandbox9. Contains various changes from observing EFR over a period of time, and (now) having some experience of seeing requests through the lens of an EFM:
ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 13:40, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
The edit filter is primarily used to address common patterns of harmful editing.I think
Edit filters areprimarily used to address common patterns of harmful editing.might be better, since technically its one system but there are multiple filters. It also feels a bit odd to establish the edit filter and then have people ask for a new one.
please consider emailing the edit filter mailing list at wikipedia-en-editfilters@lists.wikimedia.org. I feel like the wording could be changed here to something stronger. Asartea Talk | Contribs 09:43, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
where there's a reasonable suspicion that the LTA is technically proficient. I really don't like it when people say publicly "Can you create a filter to stop the LTA who says 'Ni'?" because if they find EFR, they are now the LTA who until recently said "Ni". It's not only a question of technical proficiency; even if they can't read regex, they can still read the plain English description that filter-requestor "helpfully" provided at EFR. Suffusion of Yellow ( talk) 21:35, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
consider emailingto
I noticed an IP added a non-existent template to an article page. I think there should be an abuse filter for that to warn new editors about it.
What it may look like:
![]() | This template does not seem to exist! An automated filter has detected that you are adding a template that does not exist on the wiki. Please verify that you spelled the name of the template you are trying to add correctly, and, if in doubt, please ask for help at the help desk. If this template does exist, then you may ignore this message and press Save directly. |
And for sandbox templates:
![]() | Warning: An automated filter has detected that you are adding a sandbox template to an article. Please make sure that you have removed the "/sandbox" suffix from the template before saving. If you believe you are seeing this message in error, please report it here. |
Aasim ( talk) 07:44, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
See the mailing list. Suffusion of Yellow ( talk) 23:15, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
A few new user scripts that I hope will be useful for EFMs:
Suffusion of Yellow ( talk) 20:34, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
There is some problem with it please see [6] Shrike ( talk) 07:41, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Badtitle/ApiErrorFormatter::getDummyTitle
reads like a PHP class and method name. Probably unrelated to anything onwiki and more something related to MediaWiki. In particular, it seems like it can't read {{BASEPAGENAME}}
on
MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning-DS. Best to file a phab ticket.
ProcrastinatingReader (
talk)
13:25, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
{{#ifexpr:{{In string|{{BASEPAGENAME}}|Badtitle}}|simple message|fancy message}}
(untested) might make the message less ugly, at least.
Suffusion of Yellow (
talk)
23:29, 5 April 2021 (UTC)I've noticed vandals either replacing infobox names with "DaBaby" or randomly adding "DaBaby" to an article, is there already a filter that catches these edits? And if not, could one be created or modified to include this? Thanks. Deauthorized. ( talk) 15:26, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
(ping relevant admins) @ Reaper Eternal, Zzuuzz, Oshwah, and EdJohnston: I've set up a filter at Special:AbuseFilter/1148 that should hopefully prevent the recent user talk disruption. I'm testing it now to make sure there aren't false positives, but if you've noticed any patterns or see edits slip through in the future, feel free to email me or the edit filter mailing list (I can't find the email or remember it, anyone who does feel free to replace this with the answer) — Wug· a·po·des 22:19, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Obligatory notice. Just another boring meme. Suffusion of Yellow ( talk) 01:01, 17 May 2021 (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 request to have the EFH right so that I can view private filters (& logs) to aid in my effort of cleaning up vandalism/spam by certain LTAs in smaller wikis or where I have access to admin tools. I believe that having the access will actually help me to identify them more efficiently. -- Minorax ( talk) 13:21, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Must also meet at least one of these criteria:
I created all these filters, but I'm not even looking at the log anymore. Unless anyone objects I'm going to disable filters 1047 and 1113, and try to create something out of 1111 that only looks at disambiguation pages. Will anyone miss these filters? Suffusion of Yellow ( talk) 20:05, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
I saw edits tagged as "review edit", which I didn't remember having seen before. I suspected it was an editing tool I wasn't familiar with (à la "Mobile edit", "Visual edit", etc.), so I was surprised to learn that it just tagged certain IP ranges. Couldn't we use a more descriptive, or at least less counterintuitive, name? Nardog ( talk) 04:42, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
possible disruption
tag; that tag has a label, "review edit" which certainly sounds less ABF - that label can be updated here:
MediaWiki:Tag-Possible disruption. That filter was supposed to be 'temporary' from 5 years ago - so a better question would be: is anyone actually patrolling based on these tags anymore? —
xaosflux
Talk
13:39, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Is 899 now redundant to 869, since the latter is now set to warn? ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 14:04, 19 June 2021 (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'd like to request access to the EFH privilege, thank you in advance to whoever oversees this!
I also meet one of the four required criteria, which is that I am a "currently-active extended confirmed editor on the English Wikipedia (i.e. has made edits or logged actions within the last 12 months)". Patient Zero talk 00:27, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
If a filter is created that uses a loose condition (that usually would cause too many issues) but uses ip_in_range
(
doc) to narrow this down to prevent FPs, would that be tantamount to an IP block? Just wondering if it's in my remit to do. A normal IP block would, also, be too wide.
ProcrastinatingReader (
talk)
10:59, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
I've re-set 1106 ( hist · log) "Caliphate disruption" to disallow, with a few tweaks to reduce false positives, following a resurgence of WP:CALIPH disruption and complaints at ANI. I'm running a parallel public log-only filter at 1108 ( hist · log) to monitor any related non-caught disruption. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:23, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
First step will be to create MediaWiki:Abusefilter-disallowed-WPWP with the appropriate page content (that has to be done by an admin). Or just create it to transclude a TE-protected template. That'll be for the throttle. I'm still figuring out the best way to implement 2.1. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 15:21, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
LTA filter 1160 set to throttle/disallow. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 16:24, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
I request the Edit filter helper for to view the private filters, this because I have problems for to report spambots with a single edition and I cannot assure you that the filters activated by those accounts are by improper promotional activity. I am Edit filter in eswiki, I read the policy and I want to help in this area. Regards Ruy ( talk) 13:50, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Can we disable or merge 554 into 869 / 894 / 1045 (as/if appropriate), or add to revert bot / spam blacklist? It seems a bit extreme to disallow these sources, which is stronger than we even do to deprecated ones, and they don't seem to have been subject to RSN discussions so aren't deprecated per se. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 19:31, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
I don't know if this is the right place to request filter changes, but if so would someone mind tweaking Filter 1159? Suggested changes are mocked up here. Wanting to broaden the namespace so talkpages are included, and add another common term associated with this particular run of vandalism. Pinging ProcrastinatingReader whom created the filter. Thanks, -- Jack Frost ( talk) 08:00, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
I suggested this in a thread over at VPPROP: would a filter tracking non-EC edits which add images to templates be useful? Even if we up protection of templates, there will still be a gap in our protection that we will need to monitor, which is why I think this might be useful. I can't imagine why adding an image to a template would be particularly useful in most cases, and they probably warrant additional scrutiny anyway. Before working on this, do others think this is a good idea? — Wug· a·po·des 00:35, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Don't remember which specific filter it is, but I know there is a filter that is blocking various additions of "Your Mom" and related vandalism. I think whichever filter does this should be extended to account creations if possible, i.e. in order to prevent usernames like this from being registered. Taking Out The Trash ( talk) 15:35, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
Regarding Special:AbuseFilter/1139, @ ProcrastinatingReader: following up from AN. Having a filter that requires checking every edit for a static list of text usernames in the filter is something I think is a horrible idea for so many reasons. It is creating a parallel blocking system with estoteric logging, requires admins to manually edit filters, not to mention the overhead and sustainability of having freeform text usernames that would need to grow and grow. There have GOT to be better solutions to the problem this is trying to solve? — xaosflux Talk 16:04, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
user_blocked
but I don't know whether the filter checks run before the check for whether the user is blocked. I'd suspect yes, since the variable exists; would have to test.
ProcrastinatingReader (
talk)
17:59, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
user_blocked
even exists, then...
ProcrastinatingReader (
talk)
00:20, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
I've noticed for several days that this user has attempted to link their global account locally to enwiki, but keeps getting blocked by a disallowing private filter for "LTA Username/Impersonation creations". They have a global account and don't appear to be blocked anywhere, so I'd appreciate som eyes on this to try and figure out what's going on. Taking Out The Trash ( talk) 18:36, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Adding this template as I just saw the same thing yet again. Someone really needs to look into what is going on here. Taking Out The Trash ( talk) 18:15, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Not sure if this is technically possible, but if so, would it be a good idea to create a filter in that warns (and possibly tags) when someone creates a new article that is a BLP without sources? I know there are already filters that tag edits that add unsourced information to preexisting BLPs, which is a good start, but having a filter to warn users that BLPs are required to have at least one source upon creation might be benifical. The number of articles that I've had to BLPPROD as of lately is starting to become a bit staggering. Ping for reference @ MusikAnimal: @ Suffusion of Yellow: @ ProcrastinatingReader: Taking Out The Trash ( talk) 20:13, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
I saw 1076 got triggered for this move, but I don't think that was intended? The article was moved from draftspace just today and moved back rather quickly. Isn't the filter for when an article from mainspace gets moved into draftspace for the first time? – MJL ‐Talk‐ ☖ 03:48, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Round 2 proposal by SoY to edit MediaWiki:Abusefilter-disallowed:
Standard disallow message:
![]() | An automated filter has identified this edit as potentially unconstructive, so it has been disallowed. If this edit is constructive, please
report this error. Disruptive behavior may result in being
blocked from editing.
|
Proposed new message:
![]() | Your changes have not been published. In response to an ongoing pattern of abuse, an automated filter has prevented this edit. Don't worry, your work has not been lost! The full content of this edit has been saved, but it will not be visible to readers unless you take further action. Please go the report page and follow the instructions. An experienced editor will review your changes, and provide assistance. |
As far as I can tell, SoY's proposal had consensus in round 2, although we didn't get to implementation. Is that a correct reading of the discussion? Having seen some FPs, and had my own frustrations (to put it mildly) when bugs in editing tools cause my entire edit to disappear and having to rewrite it again, I really think this change (and its associated reassurance) is needed. It's also a clearer message in general. Pinging previous contributors: @ Suffusion of Yellow, MusikAnimal, Newslinger, OhKayeSierra, Awesome Aasim, Enterprisey, Xaosflux, and DannyS712 -- are we good to implement this change? ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 16:16, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
I floated this idea for a new EF on the WP:DISCORD and was recommended to suggest it on-wiki: could there be something to mark IPs/new (non-AC) accounts adding redlinks to forename or surname set index articles (e.g. Diver (surname), presumably articles with the {{surname}} template or in Category:Lists of people by given name / Category:Given names)? I've ended up on several of these recently, and it seems that this is not uncommon and usually just someone adding themselves to the list. Thanks, eviolite (talk) 19:04, 15 September 2021 (UTC)