This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Edit filter page. |
|
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 20 days |
This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
To help centralise discussions and keep related topics together, Wikipedia talk:Edit filter noticeboard and Wikipedia talk:Edit filter/Documentation redirect here. |
I think 3rd party requests for EFM should be disallowed. We already have elemnts of RfA lite with the process and having nominators would just make that more true. I don't know that this would be helpful to anyone. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 15:46, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Sorry... ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 16:06, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi all. Even though this would not be a policy edit, I am making a suggestion here first rather than directly editing as I'm not part of the project, mainly just a tag filter user. I propose a change to the lead section, to read as follows:
The edit filter tool, also known as the abuse filter, [1] is a Wikipedia extension mainly [2] used for detecting common patterns of harmful editing, and addressing potentially-harmful edits at the moment of (attempted) submission. The tool automatically checks each new submission against a list of filters.
If a match occurs, the tool will log the action in the public edit filter log, and may additionally take any of the following actions:
Because even the smallest mistake in editing a filter can significantly disrupt the encyclopedia, only editors in the edit filter manager permission group can configure filters. These permissions are rarely awarded, and users must first show very good judgement and technical proficiency. Currently, there are 141 edit filter managers and 23 edit filter helpers. The filters currently in use can be found at Special:AbuseFilter.
Note: This page does not discuss technical details relating to the operation of the extension. These can be found at Extension:AbuseFilter.
Reason: This wording and order is more focused on what most (i.e. non-managing) users see when we investigate potentially-rogue contributors, and helps us understand the operation of the tool better and more quickly, without detracting for managers. It also disambiguates the tool itself from the individual filters (both are currently called "filter"); keeps related information together; is more concise; and makes it clearer that we can see prevented edits via the log.
Me first discovering the latter today - in the process, discovering an obvious sockpuppet - was what motivated me to finally put some more effort into understanding the edit filter, and to suggest a change that hopefully helps others do the same.
Let me know of any objections or suggestions. Turtlecrown ( talk) 19:16, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Edit filter manager has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. EggRoll97 ( talk) 19:03, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
I think it ought to be an enforcement policy. Editing guidelines generally cover how articles are structured, not how the backend runs. voorts ( talk/ contributions) 01:55, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
This guideline does not have the force of policy. EggRoll97 ( talk) 18:40, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Editing guidelines usually provide non-content advice about categorization, navigation or other how-to-edit advice.The other categories are style (edit filters aren't really stylish), notability (there's a few filters that deal in deprecated sources, but otherwise the edit filter isn't necessarily a good fit there), naming (doesn't apply), deletion (doesn't apply), content (filters cover more than the article namespace, and this probably wouldn't be the best fit), and behavioral (which reads like more of a category for user conduct, not methods of enforcement). Ultimately, only behavioral would be close to a better place to move this to within the existing guideline categorization structure, and it doesn't really seem best to move it there. I'd still probably say the best way to change the guideline label would be to get consensus to upgrade the page to a policy, and to make it into an enforcement policy. I'm not necessarily sure about the odds of that, though. EggRoll97 ( talk) 20:37, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Edit filter page. |
|
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 20 days |
This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
To help centralise discussions and keep related topics together, Wikipedia talk:Edit filter noticeboard and Wikipedia talk:Edit filter/Documentation redirect here. |
I think 3rd party requests for EFM should be disallowed. We already have elemnts of RfA lite with the process and having nominators would just make that more true. I don't know that this would be helpful to anyone. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 15:46, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Sorry... ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 16:06, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi all. Even though this would not be a policy edit, I am making a suggestion here first rather than directly editing as I'm not part of the project, mainly just a tag filter user. I propose a change to the lead section, to read as follows:
The edit filter tool, also known as the abuse filter, [1] is a Wikipedia extension mainly [2] used for detecting common patterns of harmful editing, and addressing potentially-harmful edits at the moment of (attempted) submission. The tool automatically checks each new submission against a list of filters.
If a match occurs, the tool will log the action in the public edit filter log, and may additionally take any of the following actions:
Because even the smallest mistake in editing a filter can significantly disrupt the encyclopedia, only editors in the edit filter manager permission group can configure filters. These permissions are rarely awarded, and users must first show very good judgement and technical proficiency. Currently, there are 141 edit filter managers and 23 edit filter helpers. The filters currently in use can be found at Special:AbuseFilter.
Note: This page does not discuss technical details relating to the operation of the extension. These can be found at Extension:AbuseFilter.
Reason: This wording and order is more focused on what most (i.e. non-managing) users see when we investigate potentially-rogue contributors, and helps us understand the operation of the tool better and more quickly, without detracting for managers. It also disambiguates the tool itself from the individual filters (both are currently called "filter"); keeps related information together; is more concise; and makes it clearer that we can see prevented edits via the log.
Me first discovering the latter today - in the process, discovering an obvious sockpuppet - was what motivated me to finally put some more effort into understanding the edit filter, and to suggest a change that hopefully helps others do the same.
Let me know of any objections or suggestions. Turtlecrown ( talk) 19:16, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Edit filter manager has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. EggRoll97 ( talk) 19:03, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
I think it ought to be an enforcement policy. Editing guidelines generally cover how articles are structured, not how the backend runs. voorts ( talk/ contributions) 01:55, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
This guideline does not have the force of policy. EggRoll97 ( talk) 18:40, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Editing guidelines usually provide non-content advice about categorization, navigation or other how-to-edit advice.The other categories are style (edit filters aren't really stylish), notability (there's a few filters that deal in deprecated sources, but otherwise the edit filter isn't necessarily a good fit there), naming (doesn't apply), deletion (doesn't apply), content (filters cover more than the article namespace, and this probably wouldn't be the best fit), and behavioral (which reads like more of a category for user conduct, not methods of enforcement). Ultimately, only behavioral would be close to a better place to move this to within the existing guideline categorization structure, and it doesn't really seem best to move it there. I'd still probably say the best way to change the guideline label would be to get consensus to upgrade the page to a policy, and to make it into an enforcement policy. I'm not necessarily sure about the odds of that, though. EggRoll97 ( talk) 20:37, 7 July 2024 (UTC)