Welcome to the edit filter noticeboard |
---|
Filter 1132 — Pattern modified
Filter 1014 — Flags: enabled; Pattern modified
Filter 1129 — Pattern modified
Filter 1163 — Pattern modified
Filter 1300 — Actions: warn
Filter 1289 — Flags: disabled
Filter 1076 — Pattern modified
Filter 1248 — Pattern modified
This is the edit filter noticeboard, for coordination and discussion of edit filter use and management. If you wish to request an edit filter, please post at Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested. If you would like to report a false positive, please post at Wikipedia:Edit filter/False positives. Private filters should not be discussed in detail here; please email an edit filter manager if you have specific concerns or questions about the content of hidden filters. There are currently 320 enabled filters and 45 stale filters with no hits in the past 30 days. Filter condition use is ~986, out of a maximum of 2000. ( ). See also the profiling data and edit filter graphs. |
Index
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8,
9,
10 11, 12, 13 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Standard notification. Split out of 260 ( hist · log), 384 ( hist · log), and 614 ( hist · log), with a handful of additions. No FPs in the few dozen "new" matches. I'm not going to add this to Template:DatBot filters. In fact, that was part of the reason for the split. I doubt that users adding "lol" and "fdshksdjfhskdjdshfflshjfsldkhfdslkhsfd" are really going to put in the effort to work around the filters, so let's have a bit less clutter at WP:AIV/TB2. Suffusion of Yellow ( talk) 00:36, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
After noticing this, I suggest excluding undos and reverts from being logged onto the edit filter log by #867. Toadette ( Let's talk together!) 14:47, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
page_last_edit_age >= 86400
to exclude reverts of recent edits. But even that would exclude rapid edit warring to overturn an AFD.
Suffusion of Yellow (
talk) 20:59, 14 April 2024 (UTC)(Topic name is a reference to one of my favorite error messages.)
The 15 April The Tech News weekly summary includes this blurb:
Volunteer developers are kindly asked to update the code of their tools and features to handle temporary accounts. Learn more
Of course, it's not just code that will need to be updated. A good number of edit filters are going to need to be updated. I don't think we necessarily want or need to update anything before it happens, but I'd suggest enumerating the variables and functions most likely to be affected and start building a list of filters expected to require updates.
(This may have been discussed before, but I didn't immediately find anything in the archive.) Daniel Quinlan ( talk) 23:57, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
ip_in_range()
, that will be bad, and some filters will have to just be disabled. But otherwise, so long as temp accounts are never autoconfirmed, and have an edit count and age that stays at zero or null, I don't think a huge number of filters will need updating. If user_age
and user_editcount
start incrementing, then we might want to check user_type
in some filters. I'd prefer to see how temp-account users act first. Will the vandals clear cookies after every edit? Or will most of them be too clueless? No way to know right now.
Suffusion of Yellow (
talk) 01:04, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
user_age
which is definitely used as an IP test.
Daniel Quinlan (
talk) 01:47, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
!("confirmed" in user_groups)
(as long as the temp accounts can't become confirmed or get other user permissions but that should happen anyways) would work quite well to prevent new users and the new temp account issues. –
PharyngealImplosive7
(talk) 02:39, 16 April 2024 (UTC)user_type
variable will probably work well for most simple filters.ip_in_range
and ip_in_ranges
, including some LTA filters, so hopefully
T357772 ends up in a good place.
Daniel Quinlan (
talk) 06:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)("Draftified article more than 180 days old")
Has some inevitable false positives due to AfDs, but people closing those know what they're doing. Otherwise there are a lot of draftifications of old articles by people who either don't realize how old the page is, don't know they're not supposed to do that, or both, and it would be nice if they could be warned as they do it, not later if someone happens to notice. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:43, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Not opposed to this, but both User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js or User:MPGuy2824/MoveToDraft.js just say something like this when a filter is tripped:
Could not move page: API error: abusefilter-warning Try again ?
Also MPGuy's version already gives this warning:
which is kind of hard to miss. Ideally, these script would be updated to show the parsed warning, though I'm not sure how much of an effect it will have. (Courtesy pings Evad37, MPGuy2824.) Suffusion of Yellow ( talk) 19:45, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure about this. I've manually analyzed the last 50 filter hits; and while 17 of those were true positives, there were 27 false positives (along with 6 cases in which it wasn't as clear to me). As far as I can see, the majority of the FPs came from round-robin page moves, draftification following WP:AFD/ WP:REFUND, and situations in which the page itself had existed for more than 180 days, but had only recently been moved to mainspace (and were therefore within the time limit for draftification):
Although I think a warning for true positives would be beneficial (for the same reason as Pppery), I'm wondering if there are any ways that the rate of FPs can be decreased before this filter is set as such. As things currently stand, I'm leaning oppose, due to the large proportion of warnings that would be given to editors encountering false positives. (Also, Courtesy ping: Bradv as the filter's author.)
All the best. — a smart kitten[ meow 16:39, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
moved_from_age > 15552000 & moved_to_last_edit > 604800
moved_to_last_edit_age
seems to be null
if the target page doesn't exist; see
testwiki:Special:AbuseLog/102036.
Suffusion of Yellow (
talk) 19:31, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
moved_from_age > 15552000 & (moved_to_last_edit > 604800 || moved_to_last_edit == null)
but I'm not too sure about this. –
PharyngealImplosive7
(talk) 20:12, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
moved_to_last_edit_age
variable at all. If the redirect-to-be-overwritten has only one revision, that's just the same as moved_to_age
. And if it has more than one revision, the move is just impossible.
Suffusion of Yellow (
talk) 04:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
User:SD0001/RFUD-helper
could be set to exclude only if the editor is an admin), and I don't have a strong opinion either way regarding creating a separate filter to log exclusions. Annoyingly, I'm not sure if there's a way to filter out 'page is old but was only recently moved to mainspace' hits.As a side-note, I'm wondering if it's worth notifying
Wikipedia talk:Draft of this proposal - would anyone have any objections if I did? All the best, —
a smart kitten[
meow 09:05, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Until
WP:VPT#I don't understand these edit summaries (task:
T360164) is fixed, would it be worth it to change the pattern to match these cases too?
I'm not really sure how to check how often edits like that are happening and not getting logged by the filter, other than manually looking at
Special:RecentChanges (I also don't know what other filter this might be affecting), but I figured I'd point it out and ask anyways. –
143.208.239.226 (
talk) 02:32, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Welcome to the edit filter noticeboard |
---|
Filter 1132 — Pattern modified
Filter 1014 — Flags: enabled; Pattern modified
Filter 1129 — Pattern modified
Filter 1163 — Pattern modified
Filter 1300 — Actions: warn
Filter 1289 — Flags: disabled
Filter 1076 — Pattern modified
Filter 1248 — Pattern modified
This is the edit filter noticeboard, for coordination and discussion of edit filter use and management. If you wish to request an edit filter, please post at Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested. If you would like to report a false positive, please post at Wikipedia:Edit filter/False positives. Private filters should not be discussed in detail here; please email an edit filter manager if you have specific concerns or questions about the content of hidden filters. There are currently 320 enabled filters and 45 stale filters with no hits in the past 30 days. Filter condition use is ~986, out of a maximum of 2000. ( ). See also the profiling data and edit filter graphs. |
Index
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8,
9,
10 11, 12, 13 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Standard notification. Split out of 260 ( hist · log), 384 ( hist · log), and 614 ( hist · log), with a handful of additions. No FPs in the few dozen "new" matches. I'm not going to add this to Template:DatBot filters. In fact, that was part of the reason for the split. I doubt that users adding "lol" and "fdshksdjfhskdjdshfflshjfsldkhfdslkhsfd" are really going to put in the effort to work around the filters, so let's have a bit less clutter at WP:AIV/TB2. Suffusion of Yellow ( talk) 00:36, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
After noticing this, I suggest excluding undos and reverts from being logged onto the edit filter log by #867. Toadette ( Let's talk together!) 14:47, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
page_last_edit_age >= 86400
to exclude reverts of recent edits. But even that would exclude rapid edit warring to overturn an AFD.
Suffusion of Yellow (
talk) 20:59, 14 April 2024 (UTC)(Topic name is a reference to one of my favorite error messages.)
The 15 April The Tech News weekly summary includes this blurb:
Volunteer developers are kindly asked to update the code of their tools and features to handle temporary accounts. Learn more
Of course, it's not just code that will need to be updated. A good number of edit filters are going to need to be updated. I don't think we necessarily want or need to update anything before it happens, but I'd suggest enumerating the variables and functions most likely to be affected and start building a list of filters expected to require updates.
(This may have been discussed before, but I didn't immediately find anything in the archive.) Daniel Quinlan ( talk) 23:57, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
ip_in_range()
, that will be bad, and some filters will have to just be disabled. But otherwise, so long as temp accounts are never autoconfirmed, and have an edit count and age that stays at zero or null, I don't think a huge number of filters will need updating. If user_age
and user_editcount
start incrementing, then we might want to check user_type
in some filters. I'd prefer to see how temp-account users act first. Will the vandals clear cookies after every edit? Or will most of them be too clueless? No way to know right now.
Suffusion of Yellow (
talk) 01:04, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
user_age
which is definitely used as an IP test.
Daniel Quinlan (
talk) 01:47, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
!("confirmed" in user_groups)
(as long as the temp accounts can't become confirmed or get other user permissions but that should happen anyways) would work quite well to prevent new users and the new temp account issues. –
PharyngealImplosive7
(talk) 02:39, 16 April 2024 (UTC)user_type
variable will probably work well for most simple filters.ip_in_range
and ip_in_ranges
, including some LTA filters, so hopefully
T357772 ends up in a good place.
Daniel Quinlan (
talk) 06:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)("Draftified article more than 180 days old")
Has some inevitable false positives due to AfDs, but people closing those know what they're doing. Otherwise there are a lot of draftifications of old articles by people who either don't realize how old the page is, don't know they're not supposed to do that, or both, and it would be nice if they could be warned as they do it, not later if someone happens to notice. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:43, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Not opposed to this, but both User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js or User:MPGuy2824/MoveToDraft.js just say something like this when a filter is tripped:
Could not move page: API error: abusefilter-warning Try again ?
Also MPGuy's version already gives this warning:
which is kind of hard to miss. Ideally, these script would be updated to show the parsed warning, though I'm not sure how much of an effect it will have. (Courtesy pings Evad37, MPGuy2824.) Suffusion of Yellow ( talk) 19:45, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure about this. I've manually analyzed the last 50 filter hits; and while 17 of those were true positives, there were 27 false positives (along with 6 cases in which it wasn't as clear to me). As far as I can see, the majority of the FPs came from round-robin page moves, draftification following WP:AFD/ WP:REFUND, and situations in which the page itself had existed for more than 180 days, but had only recently been moved to mainspace (and were therefore within the time limit for draftification):
Although I think a warning for true positives would be beneficial (for the same reason as Pppery), I'm wondering if there are any ways that the rate of FPs can be decreased before this filter is set as such. As things currently stand, I'm leaning oppose, due to the large proportion of warnings that would be given to editors encountering false positives. (Also, Courtesy ping: Bradv as the filter's author.)
All the best. — a smart kitten[ meow 16:39, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
moved_from_age > 15552000 & moved_to_last_edit > 604800
moved_to_last_edit_age
seems to be null
if the target page doesn't exist; see
testwiki:Special:AbuseLog/102036.
Suffusion of Yellow (
talk) 19:31, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
moved_from_age > 15552000 & (moved_to_last_edit > 604800 || moved_to_last_edit == null)
but I'm not too sure about this. –
PharyngealImplosive7
(talk) 20:12, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
moved_to_last_edit_age
variable at all. If the redirect-to-be-overwritten has only one revision, that's just the same as moved_to_age
. And if it has more than one revision, the move is just impossible.
Suffusion of Yellow (
talk) 04:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
User:SD0001/RFUD-helper
could be set to exclude only if the editor is an admin), and I don't have a strong opinion either way regarding creating a separate filter to log exclusions. Annoyingly, I'm not sure if there's a way to filter out 'page is old but was only recently moved to mainspace' hits.As a side-note, I'm wondering if it's worth notifying
Wikipedia talk:Draft of this proposal - would anyone have any objections if I did? All the best, —
a smart kitten[
meow 09:05, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Until
WP:VPT#I don't understand these edit summaries (task:
T360164) is fixed, would it be worth it to change the pattern to match these cases too?
I'm not really sure how to check how often edits like that are happening and not getting logged by the filter, other than manually looking at
Special:RecentChanges (I also don't know what other filter this might be affecting), but I figured I'd point it out and ask anyways. –
143.208.239.226 (
talk) 02:32, 22 April 2024 (UTC)