![]() | This page 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. |
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.
PhantomTech ( t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created ( xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ( blocks · rights · moves) · rfar · spi · cci)
I started working with these filters about two weeks ago in false positives, since then I've been pretty active in that area and doing a bit in the filter requests section. Right now I can't view some of the filters which delays (admittedly not by too long) some false positive reports that I otherwise wouldn't have a problem dealing with. Additionally I've been working on User:ThePhantomBot, a bot that detects LTA among other things, and going through the filters to see which can be offloaded onto my bot would help cut down the total number of edit filters. To be clear, I don't plan on disabling any filters that I set my bot to detect until my bot has been approved and the filter in question has been tested with my bot. I'll admit that two weeks isn't a long time for working on filters, but hopefully I've shown that I can be trusted to not do something reckless. I have quite a bit of experience with regex coming from having to make a regex based chat filter for something off-wiki. PhantomTech ( talk) 21:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
abusefilter-view-private
access for most of the work you want to do (as opposed to the dangerous abusefilter-modify
permission), unfortunately the only usergroup with that permission is Administrators. A new user group "Edit filter reviewers" or the like could be created to allow private-read access, if community consensus could be demonstrated (perhaps in a new section below). It would have a lower barrier to entry, you are not the first person who has asked for this type of access (e.g. sysops of other projects that want to copy our filters). —
xaosflux
Talk
10:18, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
{{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
11:07, 26 March 2015 (UTC){{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
15:54, 26 March 2015 (UTC){{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
19:25, 29 March 2015 (UTC){{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
19:25, 29 March 2015 (UTC){{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
19:25, 29 March 2015 (UTC)The few times I will actually change filters prior to my bot's approval... should be "none". I'm not an admin, so I can not give you the bit, but I've been around here long enough to know that this request is very likely to be ultimately declined. Your lack of interest or willingness to spend time reading and modifying filters on testwiki first by requesting them be copied there and making edits there and requesting changes be made here based on your changes there is an indication that you probably should not have the bit to even read the filters here. Based on this, I'm no longer willing to give you the bit you would need on testwiki to make this happen. I'm no longer going to watch this discussion, and I wish you luck if you wish to pursue this request further. —
{{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
21:35, 29 March 2015 (UTC)What does "GP disruption" mean? -- TL22 ( talk) 01:52, 3 April 2015 (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.
We've had lengthy discussions about conditions and the condition limit, but what governs how long an edit filter's run time is? I bring this up because Special:AbuseFilter/673 seems to be taking around 57ms, which is colossal compared to others and I can't see why; it's a pretty short filter. Sam Walton ( talk) 09:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
I went through the least active 50 filters and disabled two that haven't had any hits this year: 311 and 358. Dragons flight ( talk) 18:06, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
I propose to create a new user group "Edit filter helpers" (local version of global group) that has the abusefilter-view-private
permission applied to it. Also propose to add +/- group changes to this new group to the existing administrators group. This will allow us to grant view access to users that only require the access to view private filters, but do not meet the thresholds to be able to modify them. Potential candidates would be non-enwiki admins that operate certain bots, guest admins and efm's from other wiki's that want to re-use our settings, users that may respond to false positive reports.
abuse filter helpers
abusefilter-view-private
permission to this groupadministrators
{{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
05:30, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
{{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
15:54, 5 April 2015 (UTC){{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
19:01, 9 April 2015 (UTC)I've been doing a little patching T30844 T53294 T87862 T90754 to the AbuseFilter extension. Does anyone have any feature requests that you'd like someone to look at? (No promises.) Dragons flight ( talk) 05:06, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
This isn't really a request related to edit filter functionality itself, but if there were a "console" so to speak to test out all the functions like ccnorm
, that would be incredible. I envision a textarea where I can type in what would be the pre-saved wikimarkup, then have a select dropdown of
all the functions (ccnorm, count, str_replace, etc.), and a "Run" button that would then show me how the functions would interpret it. Right now it's more of a trial and error scenario. I edit my sandbox, then use the batch tester to run my filter against it and see if it matches the edit based on what I think the functions are doing. —
MusikAnimal
talk
20:48, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
It could be a useful addition to be able to check who a page's creator is. I thought this was already a feature but then couldn't find it. Sam Walton ( talk) 20:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
article_first_contributor
, but that's not listed at
mw:Extension:AbuseFilter/Rules format. Could you, while you're working on this, double check if anything else is missing from that page?
Sam Walton (
talk)
21:01, 1 April 2015 (UTC)List of all recognized symbols and keywords
|
---|
' - ! != !== " % & ( ) * ** */ , / /* : := ; ? [ ] ^ | + < <= == === > >= accountname action added_lines added_lines_pst added_links all_links article_articleid article_first_contributor article_namespace article_prefixedtext article_recent_contributors article_restrictions_create article_restrictions_edit article_restrictions_move article_restrictions_upload article_text bool ccnorm contains contains contains_any count edit_delta edit_diff edit_diff_pst else end false file_sha1 file_size float if in int ip_in_range irlike lcase length like matches minor_edit moved_from_articleid moved_from_namespace moved_from_prefixedtext moved_from_text moved_to_articleid moved_to_namespace moved_to_prefixedtext moved_to_text new_html new_pst new_size new_text new_wikitext norm null old_links old_size old_wikitext rcount regex removed_lines removed_links rescape rlike rmdoubles rmspecials rmwhitespace set set_var specialratio str_replace string strlen strpos substr summary then timestamp true ucase user_age user_blocked user_editcount user_emailconfirm user_groups user_name user_rights |
On this subject, some syntax highlighting, requested at phab:T39192, would be much appreciable for code readability. Cenarium ( talk) 22:05, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Dragons flight, would it be possible to add the ability to check if edits have tripped other filters? Say an edit trips filter 600 and 650, I could then create a filter which looks for edits which tripped both filters. I think this could be useful for the broader edit filters; we could save on duplicating checks by simply writing 'Did the edit flag this other filter?' Not sure how hard this would be to implement though as I don't know the details of how edits are checked against filters. Thanks, Sam Walton ( talk) 18:06, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
!("confirmed" in user_groups)
or (article_namespace == 0)
within the edit filter system, so these queries are only made once for each edit. —
SMALL
JIM
09:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't know how much time you've got, but someone should mention, an edit/changes summary log instead of annotating changes in the notes section. Also, the ability to view a diff before saving changes. I once wanted to know if someone was editing the talk page of a blocked user, but found I couldn't. Not that common I'll admit. Thanks :) -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:15, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
See the history of {{ UK MP links}}. I imagine that edits like those would be quite hard to trap using regular expressions, but much easier if the underlying software allowed an edit filter to test a temporary copy of the text that had the HTML comments stripped out. -- John of Reading ( talk) 06:36, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Messages such as a MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning-advertising say "go to the bottom of this page and click 'Save page' again", which is incorrect if the edit was made via the Visual Editor. See WP:HD#"Your edit has triggered a filter...". Is this fixable? -- John of Reading ( talk) 06:11, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
What is Edit filter Beals? Both a good-faith edit that I made and a good-faith edit by another editor were blocked by this filter at about 1530 GMT on 13 May. On searching, I see that there is a sockmaster named David Beals. Is this filter designed to block edits by his sockpuppets, or does it have some other purpose? I have filed a false positive report. Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:51, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
No. | Feature request | Benefit or Purpose | Phabricator no |
---|---|---|---|
1 | Special:AbuseLog should be filterable by action taken, e.g. "disallow" | disallowing filters and disallowed edits would be monitored more effectivelly (for falls positives etc.) | T50961 |
I would like a way to keep track of where the <graph> and <property> parser functions are being used in the main namespace. Both of these are generally meant to be used more in templates and other non-main namespace pages, though curious if/how they are being used directly in the main namespace.
I am also somewhat curious about having a tag for all graphs also. (there is a page_prop, so these can be found with Special:PagesWithProps, but would be useful to find these in recent changes)
(article_namespace == 0) &
(lcase(added_lines) rlike "<\s?graph")
tag: 'graphmain' (for main namespace) and possibly another filter to tag 'graph' (for all namespaces).
(article_namespace == 0) &
(lcase(added_lines) rlike "<\s?property")
tag: 'property'
or we could just tags all edits with the tags
(lcase(added_lines) rlike "<\s?graph")
and then can filter by namespace in Special:Recentchanges. that might be the best option, at least for graph.
Aude ( talk) 06:02, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
When I edit a filter (on Swedish Wikipedia) there is a label called "Statistics" and a text that shall inform about how long time it takes to run the filter and how many conditions that are used. Those values are not shown. "$4" and "$5" is shown instead. I think it started to look like this today. Does it look the same on English Wikipedia? Does anyone know what is wrong? Svensson1 ( talk) 10:29, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
While going through wikipedia:Edit_filter/False_positives page, I came across Wikipedia:Edit_filter/False_positives#90.208.8.194 this discussion. While it seems to have been replied by an admin but feel there may be some scope to revisit the discussion by some admin who is experienced edit filter manager. Actually claimed (false) positive seems to be about user signature in article, hit to Special:AbuseFilter/613 and warn message is quite ok. But the filter no. Special:AbuseFilter/623 is also about simmiller purpose and it disallows edit. While filter no Special:AbuseFilter/623 is private and I can not see it but my logic is if Special:AbuseFilter/623 hits first wrong edit itself and disallows an edit then there wont be any need of Special:AbuseFilter/613, or else Special:AbuseFilter/623 should catch second attempt and not first attempt.
In any case prima facia answer given to the ip user seems to be different one than what the filters were doing ? So I felt that if the answer giving admin has exmined false positives with given filters then, let some edit filter manager peer review what exactly happening at Special:AbuseFilter/623.
Mahitgar ( talk) 08:42, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
I was thinking about ways to collaborate with many users about things like LTA cases when I realized that filter managers don't really have any effective way (that I'm aware of) to communicate about private filters. Public filters can quite easily be discussed here or on the requests page, but, for obvious reasons, private filter discussion has to be very limited in public places like these. The only currently existing ways I'm aware of that allow discussion of private filters are emailing someone (which requires you know who is going to be able to help the most) or using the filters comments, which can be seen by anyone working on the filters but probably wont be noticed unless they're actively paying attention to that filter. Since there's an apparent lack of a way to have a wider discussion about private filters, I'm proposing that a private mailing list (abusefilter-en or similar) be created. The mailing list would be meant to be used only for discussing private filters, since using other places to discuss public ones would allow for more input than the mailing list. It could also be used by non-subscribers to request private filters. Here's the meta page on mailing lists. PHANTOMTECH ( talk) 23:37, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
I reported Wikipedia:Edit_filter/Requested#Persistant_spam this request. For confidentiality purposes if edit filter managers do not want give details what they will be doing or not doing is quite ok. But atleast if some one replies saying that the message has been taken note of then reporting person will feel good and report it again next time. It is not about my request, but otherwise also co-operating users are dealt with un understood silence may be revisited by edit filter managers.
Rgds Mahitgar ( talk) 09:04, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
User:Samwalton9 yes, I understand this dificulty..Any way I have noted few more instances of the same spam at Wikipedia:Edit_filter/Requested#Persistant_spam latest being dated 8th June. Rather than those admins doing the same deletion work again and again if they spare a little time over with edit filter, it may save their valuable time. But alas, at times saving of time and efforts also takes its own time.
Thanks for your reply and best wishes
Mahitgar ( talk) 17:38, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
As a result of the recent discussion on edit filters and how they're used I've opened a section at the Village pump regarding the possibility of creating policies regarding the filter. Your opinions are welcome. Sam Walton ( talk) 00:43, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I've made a few changes to the main page, moving the extended documentation off to its own page at Wikipedia:Edit filter/Documentation and updating this page to be more of an information page. I've added some information from recent threads on edit filters to steer it towards the current community consensus on how filters should be used. Your input is welcome and please feel free to change or expand the page. Sam Walton ( talk) 19:42, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Special:AbuseFilter/examine/log/12627707
Maybe we need to analyse this EF in a little more detail.
All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough,
14:58, 11 July 2015 (UTC).
I'd like to request some additional eyes on Special:AbuseFilter/651, a IP vandal targeted filter created by User:Callanecc six months that seems very broad (e.g. IP ranges with /11 and /12 and broad page categories). While there is some vandalism in there, the false positive rate seems pretty high for a full disallow filter. Also, given that it has been six months, is this particular vandal still active? The related SPI, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AfricaTanz, hasn't been updated since December. Dragons flight ( talk) 01:39, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Could we disable 648? It only has ever had 140 hits, and seems to be obsolescent if not obsolete. All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough,
00:36, 14 July 2015 (UTC).
User:Samwalton9: Can we disable 623 yet, if not can we temporarily disable 613? All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough,
15:10, 14 July 2015 (UTC).
I propose that Filter 2 becomes a standard private test filter. It will allow us to test private filters privately, with out, perhaps, chewing through filter numbers quite so fast.
All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough,
18:36, 17 July 2015 (UTC).
From anonymous user: What's the point of this filter, why can't I find any details on WHY it filters, who made it and who decided it should be employed? I was filtered for trying to constructively argue on a TALK page!!! Why should a bot be allowed to exist on wikipedia that "filters" (it acts more like a fascist censor, apparently) when it includes no curse words or racial epithets? Or anything else stupid like all-caps texts or ASCII art or something like this? I wish I could find the author of this program and go "filter," of all of his edits! There was absolutely nothing wrong with my edit, or any bad words or anything like this. This own particular reply of mine on the talk page of this fascist bot isn't quite as level-headed but that's because I am very angry! Maybe this is how the old guard scares off potential new editors? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.132.236.51 ( talk • contribs)
:::
was added to the ASCII art filter. I can easily see this as a simple mistake, but it was left like this for some time. All due respect, but please give due caution to filters that disallow, and always monitor filter hits after making such changes —
MusikAnimal
talk
04:45, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
There seems to be an issue in the names of articles as displayed on a the test page. Possibly one or more invisible characters, or non-breaking spaces instead of genuine spaces. Regardless cutting and pasting the names into the rules often doesn't work. We need to hunt this down and raise a bug. I'll do it eventually, but if someone else does it first, all the better. All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough,
11:19, 25 July 2015 (UTC).
@ Dragons Flight, Zzuuzz, Samwalton9, and Smalljim: We are reaching condition limit for less that 1 in 1000 edits, but less would be better. Of course we have discussed asking to have this figure raised. But it occurs to me that there is may be a subtle way of avoiding it that lies in our hands. I use the word "condition" naively in the following discussion.
Every edit gets hit by every filter, so generating at least "n" conditions.
Many filters test for "newbie" status as the first condition, suppose for simplicity they all do. Then every "newbie" edit would get hit with "2n" conditions (minimum).
By reordering the conditions it may be possible to reduce the peak number, and reduce the proportion that hit the condition limit. Drawback: Overall efficiency would probably fall.
Comments?
All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough,
15:31, 19 July 2015 (UTC).
added_lines irlike some-complex-regex
as the first line in the filter? —
SMALL
JIM
16:20, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
If anyone wants to work at cutting conditions, the worst filter for conditions (I think) is Special:AbuseFilter/31 which can hit 70+ conditions. Large lists using contains_any rack up a lot of conditions, and it really should be converted to a regex. Dragons flight ( talk) 23:06, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Just added hidden Special:AbuseFilter/714 but this is my first filter; would appreciate review and comment prior to activation. It passed the parser checker etc. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert ( talk) 19:39, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Filter 688 isn't working: it should block certain edits to User talk:Mike Rosoft and when run in test mode [1], it shows hits, but it isn't logging or preventing them live. What's wrong, or what am I doing wrong? — SMALL JIM 15:49, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
For example:
<very unlikely to be true cheap condition> & ( :"foo" in lcase added_lines & :!"foo" in lcase removed_lines )
might well be efficient but it counts as two conditions (AIUI) one for the condition and one for the parenthesis.
Conversely the awful:
"foo" in lcase added_lines &
!"foo" in lcase removed_lines
also (again AIUI) counts as two conditions.
All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough,
00:54, 14 July 2015 (UTC).
"foo" in lcase( added_lines ) &
!"foo" in lcase( removed_lines )
Take a look at wikt:Special:Contributions/Glory_of_Space. I am curious if Wikipedia has found it fruitful to write an edit filter against this vandal; if so, can Wiktionary copy that filter? (People like bd2412 and Thryduulf are admins on both sites and could presumably copy the filter over if it is private.) I wouldn't necessarily turn it on on Wiktionary unless the vandalism becomes a repeat problem, but it seems like a good idea to have it at hand. -sche ( talk) 20:13, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
It would be nice to have some standard wordings for this common "false positive".
I would like to achieve the following goals:
All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough,
12:53, 5 August 2015 (UTC).
{{
EF}}
Make linking easy using {{
EF}}
- e.g. {{
EF|364}}
364. All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough,
18:52, 6 August 2015 (UTC).
The following is a complete list of the active hidden filters:
Of these, I would suggest that the argument for hiding the filter isn't very strong for the following ten cases.
Most of these do pretty much what you'd expect based on the short description, so one can mostly guess what the filter is doing even though the details are hidden. In the spirit of openness, I tend to think that filters shouldn't be hidden unless there is a good reason to think that specific vandals will use knowledge of the filter code to deliberately defeat them. So, I'd like to suggest that we unhide these ten filters. However, I wanted to seek second opinions before doing so, as well as let other people look at the list of hidden filters in case there are other examples where hiding the details is probably not accomplishing much. Dragons flight ( talk) 01:16, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
I just created hidden Special:AbuseFilter/714 and believe it should stay that way but open to independent review. Georgewilliamherbert ( talk) 19:37, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
There appears to be a bug disallowing variable names starting with "ex". Perhaps "ex" has a special meaning, possible related to numbers "9.53ex8"?
Even if it does still looks like a parse bug to me.
All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough,
19:18, 6 August 2015 (UTC).
I see a ton of the changing of names in BLP infoboxes. I'm not sure what 364 is tagging (
Special:Tags doesn't list any, possibly possible libel or vandalism
?), but I see a ton of vandalism of this sort. I'm not sure of how the filter is written, but it doesn't seem to be hugely effective, and it's certainly needed. If anybody could take a look at it it would be great.
Kharkiv07 (
T)
19:43, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi all. Newyorkbrad has started a draft for creating a guideline or policy to place on WP:EF in response to ArbCom's encouragement that a guideline or policy should be formed for edit filters' use. Please review Wikipedia:Edit Filter/Draft and alter/comment as you wish. I think the idea is to form a solid draft between the edit filter managers and interested community members before taking it to a proper RfC. Sam Walton ( talk) 09:45, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Just a heads up that with the latest update to MediaWiki [6], these are no longer effective. The latter, originally intended for long-term abuse, might still be useful but we'd need someone to keep an eye on it to ensure it's targeting who it's supposed to, as the hit count is going to be considerably low. Pinging original author NawlinWiki — MusikAnimal talk 20:22, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
As part of our efforts to improve the use of the edit filter, an edit filter noticeboard has been created. We hope that this will be a better venue for users to discuss and ask questions about edit filters, whilst also freeing up WT:EF for discussion of the corresponding project page. Sam Walton ( talk) 15:39, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Special:AbuseFilter/31 There have been a couple of false positive reports recently about this filter, which is supposed to block ASCII art, blocking edits to math formulas. I don't know if this was maybe caused by recent edits, or the problem was always there. Examples: Special:AbuseLog/12875270, Special:AbuseLog/12876144. Someguy1221 ( talk) 22:52, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
^\s+
would be a useful test under which to group the matches for multi-line graphics, such as the original goatse. A lot of the conditions in this filter appear to be targeted at multi-line graphics and, looking at recent hits, these don't seem to be attempted much these days. A change like this would dramatically reduce the average condition count. —
SMALL
JIM
09:55, 18 August 2015 (UTC)Hey all,
Can someone who knows how to use edit filters reply at User talk:Technophant#Requesting editing privileges for WP:AN and my userpage please? Thanks, Mdann52 ( talk) 07:56, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
I've never seen this feature used before. Is there consensus against using it? — MusikAnimal talk 19:22, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Further to
Wikipedia:Edit_filter/False_positives/Reports/Archive_42#160.39.2.162, filter
716 should stop this sort of situation arising. Any comments? All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough,
23:24, 2 August 2015 (UTC).
365 stopped them. All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough,
03:31, 29 August 2015 (UTC).
Is there a way to block someone from using the term "Paul Easter" in an article? This is a bit tricky, but long story short there's a guy that has been trying to make an article for himself for the past year. He's made over a hundred sockpuppets, which you can look over here. By large these articles have been easily detected and deleted, but it takes up a lot of time and energy. McGeddon has requested a block on article titles with this name, but sometimes Easter will deliberately leave his name out of the title in an attempt to avoid detection. Is there anything that can be done with this? There's another person by the name of Paul Easter so there's likely not much that can be done, but I figure it's worth it to ask. The guy is pretty persistent and to be honest, I kind of see him as someone that will probably keep this up for a long while. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 09:30, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
726 should be tracking this. Will set to disallow if it works. Sam Walton ( talk) 10:34, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
58.
NawlinWiki has been dealing with this for years since early 2014. —
SMALL
JIM
10:44, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Just a reminder that there is currently work ongoing to create a guideline for edit filter use. Please feel free to improve it and/or join in discussions at the talk page. Sam Walton ( talk) 15:00, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Editors are invited to join a Request for Comment regarding the introduction of a proposed guideline for edit filter use. Please join the voting and discussion at Wikipedia:Edit filter/RfC. Sam Walton ( talk) 17:24, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi all - I'd like to request the edit filter manager permission.
Although I've only recently found out about WP:FLTR, I am really keen to help the project. For a long time I assumed something like this existed while patrolling pages and noticing tags such as "CSD removed" etc. I'd like to now put my experience to good use. Thanks for your consideration. samtar ( msg) 08:56, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I am regularly checking the deadlink spam filter and noticed a handling problem with "Edit filter logs" like [7]. In probably half of the cases one can easily guess, if the addition was a spam link. In those cases the main question of interest would be: is the spam link still present in the article or has it been removed by someone else? But there is no direct history link to get that article information without clicking through other pages first. 1) Would it be possible to add a link to the article's history for each entry? 2) Who needs to be asked for such a change? Thanks for any feedback and advice. GermanJoe ( talk) 15:22, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
During the recent RfC, a suggestion was made that edit filter managers should publicise that they created, or will create, a filter set to disallow edits. Davidwr proposed the following wording: "Except in urgent situations, edit filters must not be set to disallow without thorough testing and a notice to other edit-filter reviewers to give them time to review the filter for technical accuracy. In urgent situations, the notice may be made after-the-fact. Prior to and during the review of an edit filter which is set to "disallow" due to an emergency, the editor placing the edit filter is responsible for seeing that the logs are regularly monitored and false positives are minimized."
I like this idea a lot, I think one of the major issues editors have with the edit filter is how it's obscured within Special pages; posting a note to EFN stating that Filter X will be set to disallow after a week of testing gives everyone a heads up and allows other EFMs to help out and double check it prior to switching the disallow button, and gives the community an opportunity to voice their opinions. I wouldn't want this to compromise the filter's usefulness, so if non-EFMs/admins wanted to discuss the contents of a hidden filter, they can contact the mailing list wikipedia-en-editfilters for details (if a user in good standing).
I think the above wording is pretty good (I'd only want to make trivial alterations like explicitly naming the venue as EFN and mentioning the mailing list as I did) and I'd like to have a discussion about it before proposing it properly (RfC?); what are your thoughts? Sam Walton ( talk) 12:24, 17 November 2015 (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.
Should the following text be added to the 'Recommended uses' section?
Except in urgent situations, new edit filters must not be set to disallow without thorough testing and a notice at the noticeboard to give other edit filter managers and the community time to review the filter for technical accuracy and necessity. [1] In urgent situations, the notice may be made after-the-fact. Prior to and during the review of an edit filter which is set to "disallow" due to an emergency, the editor placing the edit filter is responsible for seeing that the logs are regularly monitored and false positives are minimized.
References
I am concerned that this will have a bad effect on filters designed to stop persistent vandals who do not necessarily rise to the level of LTA (yet). All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough,
20:44, 29 November 2015 (UTC).
See also phab:T62588 (Provide ability to watch for changes on filters). Helder 13:35, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
I naively thought
this filter would stop IPs like
81.158.98.222 (
talk ·
contribs), but it didn't. Why? Please fix if you can. Other means won't help - the socker launches a java script to spam talk pages from a preloaded list, and then hops to another IP within a vast and busy IP range. One batch of their edits occurs within a short time (limited only by software).
Materialscientist (
talk)
04:49, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
As per this current discussion at ANI, I'm wondering if an Edit filter could be created to prevent the addition of inappropriate and back-door personal attacking "barnstar" messages to user Talk pages? And the ANI case isn't the only recent example of this – an inappropriate "barnstar" was recently removed from my own Talk page by Kharkiv07. So, can anything be done about this?... TIA. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 17:02, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Two of my edits (to Binomial theorem and Tyler Ward) have tripped filter 550, which has the description "nowiki tags inserted into an article".
Based on the information at Help:Wiki markup, nowiki tags break or stop the parsing of wiki markup.
I fail to see what is wrong with having nowiki tags, unless someone maliciously adds a nowiki to something that needs to be parsed as wiki markup, such as a bunch of links or an infobox.
I guess my beef about the whole thing is that the page where you can look at all the times when a user has tripped a filter is Special:AbuseLog. The use of the word "abuse" conveys that the user is doing something he shouldn't be doing and that edits that trip filters are bad.
And what is the purpose of the nowiki filter anyway? Vandalism through use of nowikis seems very rare; in my year plus of editing experience I have yet to see people vandalise with nowikis.
Thank you,
Bad Weather 2014 My work • What's wrong? 13:59, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
The insertion of extraneous nowiki tags is still one of the biggest issues in visual editor, its one of the blocking issues about the wider rollout of the editor. Generally every time VE adds one its in error. If you look at the recent change log [11] it shows more than 50 mistakes a day. You get errors like Kebumen_City which don't have a visible effect but generate bad wikicode. As it addressed a specific set of bug it useful to separate out this from other extraneous markup filters. -- Salix alba ( talk): 06:15, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
As this is dealing with a Visual Editor bug could someone change filter 550 so it only looks at V/E edits and ignores edits done via the classic editor? That should prevent incidents like the one that started this thread. Ϣere SpielChequers 20:28, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Just a note to say I am absolutely certain that the vast majority of editors are completely unaware of how much their editing lives are improved by the quiet work done here. Unfortunately it's a little like being an intelligence agent, in that public accolades risk impairing the effectiveness of the very efforts being praised. I, at least, appreciate it. EEng ( talk) 09:24, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Does anyone know how the "pre-save transformed" variables such as added_lines_pst, removed_lines_pst, and edit_diff_pst differ from their normal counterparts? Prodego talk 20:50, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Please vote and join discussions at two RfCs regarding the edit filter, including the possibility of enabling its blocking ability. Sam Walton ( talk) 18:20, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
There's been a recent Idea Lab discussion about enabling the Edit filter's block function, and I'm aiming to make a couple of proposals as a result, but I'm not completely certain what to propose for one point, namely what the Guideline should say about blocking. Each method I think of has some shortfalls, but something like this would be my proposal: "The blocking function must not be enabled for a filter which has received any false positives in the past 30 days, and should only be used on filters where editors tripping the filter are always currently blocked manually. At least 3 administrators must agree that these requirements have been met, in a public venue such as the edit filter noticeboard prior to the enabling of this option."
While this isn't the proper RfC (so don't vote on this in particular!), do you think this is a sensible proposal or should it be more or less strict? Sam Walton ( talk) 14:42, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm a long term editor who also happens to be a computer programmer (25 years of flipping bits, mostly embedded stuff but with a bit of web things here and there - resume here). I often poke around on informal anti-vandal patrol now and then and have been looking for a way to contribute more to Wikipedia, preferably something that leverages my technical skills. I don't have a huge amount of time to spare, just a few hours a week, so applying to be an Administrator seemed a bit of overkill. User:KrakatoaKatie suggested I look helping out with Edit Filters.
Is this something I could help out with? If so, how would we proceed? I'll watch this page for a response.
Thanks KNHaw (talk) 23:40, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
What is with the pseudo-citations in the article linking to pseudo-random ArbCom decisions and what not? I count about 23 of them. Even if someone reverts a statement with basis in consensus, it is easy to revert, providing a link to the discussion. Esquivalience t 03:00, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Should the following be added to the user right section of the policy;
Any administrator who has the edit filter manager right and is desysoped under a cloud should also have their edit filter manager right removed, regardless if they held it prior to becoming an administrator. They may regain it through the normal process at edit filter noticeboard.
87.115.76.251 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) has recently added a significant amount of content. A lot of it I wholeheartedly agree with, but some of it is disputable, and we shouldn't being drawing conclusions directly into a guideline without clear consensus. I also think we might be going a little overboard in general by bloating the same information that we already had beforehand. No need to be that thorough, we should be concise. I've reverted the content for now, and have informed 87.115.76.251 of this so we can discuss further. Thanks — MusikAnimal talk 21:17, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
I have completed the documentation at Wikipedia:Edit filter/Documentation; feedback or fixes are appreciated. Esquivalience t 03:05, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello. I am an editor creating articles here. I have just expanded my scope to reviewing vandalism and other issues. I wanted advise on which filter will be good to review the following:
There are so many filters I see so I am confused.
Thank you. Xender Lourdes ( talk) 04:26, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Hope that helps! Sam Walton ( talk) 20:29, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
I was trying to change a quote in the Donald Regan article "expletive you" to "fuck you". In the past usually a flag was triggered when a valid edit was made. Now that is no longer the case. Preventing curse words to be in articles, when it is appropriate as in not having to censor a quote, seems to indicate a change in what Wikipedia espoused as a policy regarding censorship. 166.172.60.147 ( talk) 18:54, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Out of pure curiosity, I heard that the edit filter is capable of revoking one's autoconfirmed rights. This sounds like a very harsh action for a mere edit filter to take, so I was wondering:
1) Has this ever been used in any edit filters?
2) If not, in which circumstances is it designed to be used?
3) Does this temporarily disable your autoconfirmed rights, or does it strip your account of them and require you to ask at Requests for Permissions to get them back?
Thanks, Passengerpigeon ( talk) 22:07, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
It's getting on my nerves, always blocking out edits whenever least desired. It's the prime source of frustration for us editors. Snacker10 ( talk) 03:48, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
But if it is triggered, it should at least specify what did. Snacker10 ( talk) 03:59, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
What's the point of that anyway? If the filter is deleted, it means it's not going to be used anymore - so why can't any sensitive conditions/notes be blanked and the filter made public? Why are there private filters anyways, except for testing purposes? 50.199.236.1 ( talk) 13:04, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
I've had a request from the Turkish Wikipedia for some advice, they have an image vandal adding images of shit etc and are wondering if an edit filter stopping newbies adding images in their first 100 edits is the best way to handle this. I don't think they have enable the image filter yet. Ϣere SpielChequers 16:49, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
As part of the deployment of deferred changes, we'll need to update this guideline. I suggest to add the following to the Basics of usage section between warn and tag levels:
And to add a paragraph at the end of the Recommended uses section:
For edit filters targeting reviewable namespaces (currently only mainspace and project space), edit filters can be set to defer for review passively or actively. Per the RFC on the subject, edit filters should be set to defer passively before being set to defer actively. During the passive phase, the backlog should be watched carefully [1] and matches should be scrutinized for false positives. If the backlog grows excessively, it means deferring is not appropriate for the filter, or it should be modified to diminish catch rate. If there is a substantial number of false positives, then the filter should not be set to defer actively, or it should be modified to diminish false positives. If both the backlog and false positives are kept in check, then the filter may be set to defer actively.
Cenarium ( talk) 00:53, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Roll-back is a standard method of dealing with copyright violations. Until today I've been able to do that using the [restore this version] option provided by Twinkle. Now, when trying to roll back a biography to the last clean version, I'm blocked by this edit filter, which gives the message:
The following warning was returned by the edit filter:
Edit disallowed: {{persondata}} has been deprecated, it should not be used anywhere. Machine-readable information should be added to Wikidata instead.
If you wish to proceed with the rollback, please reload this page (F5 or Ctrl+R) and carry it out again. This warning wil [sic] not appear a second time
But if I reload the page and try to make the edit as instructed, I just get this:
The edit was disallowed by the edit filter rule "Disallow adding {{persondata}}".
Any advice on how to actually do the roll-back? I know of course that I can do it manually – find the revision number and editor of the last clean version for the edit summary, edit that version, remove the damned persondata, and save. But copyright clean-up is already time-consuming, we really don't need anything that makes it more so. Can I, for example, request exemption from the filter (I'm a copyright clerk)? Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 13:50, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
An IP-hopping spammer has been adding "Contact 09035865525" to many Nigerian university articles, e.g. [14], [15]. User:Materialscientist tells me "This is an LTA case, and some socks are here. All edits come from the 197.210.0.0/16 range, which is busy, but we might consider blocking it. The added phone numbers vary." Looking at the sock contributions, they do indeed vary. I can think of a few string + number regexes to filter on, but don't know anything about how the edit filter works on WP. Any thoughts on how best to filter these? Thanks, Wikishovel ( talk) 06:26, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Hey guys, I'm trying to figure out why Special:AbuseFilter/examine/log/17828520 is not a positive match to Special:AbuseFilter/839. This edit was hit by 839 earlier today, but now when I run the examine utility, or the batch test, it doesn't generate a hit. I can't seem to make it hit no matter how I edit the filter in the examine function. Someguy1221 ( talk) 23:09, 17 February 2017 (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.
Should edit filters be used to prevent citing sources deemed unreliable, or warn editors trying to do so, or log such actions? Tigraan Click here to contact me 13:45, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
The question is whether when a source is deemed unreliable by community consensus, an edit filter can be set to ward off attempts to cite it. The intended use is mostly against online sources because URL regular expression matching is easy, but it could be used to other sources as well if technically feasible.
By default, a "support" vote means that any filter setting can be used (subject to Wikipedia:Edit_filter#Recommended_uses); consensus for the use of a filter could decide to set a "log", "tag", "warn" or "disallow" level. If you think only specific filtering levels should be allowed or encouraged, please specify it.
A few clarifications:
sources deemed unreliableon purpose. The default I envision would be that community consensus can establish an edit filter on a case-by-case basis, but sources previously deemed unreliable would not be eligible; consensus would have to be established specifically for the use of an edit filter. Another RfC could establish criteria to consider for an edit filter to be set (e.g., widespread use by new editors, extra-unreliability threshold, etc.).
This RfC on RS/N was closed recently, establishing the use of an edit filter set on "warn" against citing the Daily Mail. I commented here. Much of the discussion focussed on whether the DM is a reliable source and whether a blanket ban on an unreliable source is acceptable or needed; however, the technical implementation was almost not discussed, even though it was an important part of the proposal in my view.
Since that RfC may constitute a de facto precedent for a blanket ban on multiple other "mainpress" but unreliable sources, concerns about the technical implementation should be addressed separately. Ideally, this would have been done beforehand, but better late than never.
"The Daily Mail may have been more reliable historically, and it could make sense to cite it as a primary source if it is the subject of discussion.". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:50, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
<ref>
to articles, do you? --
QEDK (
愛)
04:21, 17 March 2017 (UTC)The decision at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Daily Mail RfC, ratified by five uninvolved administrators, clearly states "An edit filter should be put in place going forward to warn editors attempting to use the Daily Mail as a reference." This RfC cannot be used as a backdoor method of overturning that RfC by not having any edit filter. Tigraan made that clear when he posted this RfC, but some editors here are ignoring him -- Guy Macon ( talk) 18:08, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
The proposal has been modified after several people !voted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:41, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Suddenly, I am having doubts about this RfC. The correct order to handle the whole thing would have been (1) establish policy for the "list of bad sources", (2) establish policy for edit-filtering those sources, (3) establish the Daily Mail fail under this, and to stop at any point were consensus fails.
The previous RfC mixed up all three, and was debated about half on point (3), half on point (1) and epsilon-esquely on point (2). In opening this RfC, I hoped to clarify point (2); but I missed in doing so that point (1) was not settled by the previous RfC, in view of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS complaints.
Should the present RfC be put on hold, conditional on a first RfC on point (1) (which may or may not overturn the previous one)? I would boldly do so, but it would look like a textbook example of unilateral action when things are not going "your" way. Tigraan Click here to contact me 19:29, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
I advise withdrawing this RfC and posting a new one with a question such as "How should we implement the decision at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Daily Mail RfC?", asking the readers to make specific proposals, and seeing if any get significant support. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 12:54, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't know whether this is the right place to complain about this, but I have a problem with your edit filter thing: I'm German so I usually start on the german wikipedia. I often click on the "english" version on the left and then, probably 8 out of 10 times, I don't land on the english article but on /info/en/?search=Special:AbuseFilter It's pretty annoying, as I always have to go back and try again, sometimes I have to try several times before I can actually see the article. Can anyone tell me why this happens? Thanks :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.187.22.125 ( talk) 16:20, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Reposting from WP:AN — DoRD ( talk) 01:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello!
I’d like to invite you to participate in a discussion about how the Edit filter (also known as AbuseFilter) can potentially be used to combat harassment. The Anti-Harassment Tools team is looking into improving performance and adding functionality and we need your input to make our work successful.
Join the conversation at Wikipedia talk:Community health initiative on English Wikipedia#Exploring how the Edit filter can be used to combat harassment. I hope to see y’all there!
— TBolliger (WMF) ( talk) 23:18, 21 June 2017 (UTC) on behalf of the Anti-Harassment Tools team
Hello. You are invited to comment on this ANI reform RfC. This invitation has been posted here because one of the RfC proposals relates to edit filters. Please do not comment in this thread; post all comments on the RfC pages. Thanks, Biblio ( talk) 19:32, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi,
This is an invitation to Edit filter managers and patrollers who refer to edit filters from your wiki project to share and know about
effective public filters from various wikimedia wiki projects.
It is almost eight years since March 2009, that Edit filters are in use on various Wikimedia wiki projects. At meta we have started a platform page m:Edit filters benefiting to various local Wikiprojects to know good and effective (public) edit filters by sharing of relevant information with rest of wikimedia community. This will help editfilter managers, and there by concerned projects, to benefit from maximising potential of best possible (public) edit filters.
We are keen to have your participation in this collaborative and constructive endeavour and the discussions.
Mahitgar ( talk) 11:29, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Would it be a good idea to add an option to only view public filters so that it would be less confusing for people who want to view the edit filters but aren't edit filter managers or helpers? [ Username Needed 12:59, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Ok, I'll request this at phabricator. [ Username Needed 11:09, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
| Here is the request [ Username Needed 11:17, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
{{
Rfc|tech}}
Why has the $1
variable been excluded from the message? This variable displays the public title of the filter that has been tripped when the action is disallowed. I think that the variable should be added so that inexperienced but good-faith users who may not know how to check their filter hits log will know why their edit was blocked.
66.31.81.200 (
talk)
00:31, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
![]() | 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 editing may result in a
block from editing.
|
— JJMC89 ( T· C) 02:41, 7 January 2018 (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 recently reviewed (Out of interest sake) a whole bunch of edit filters and stumbled upon a more recent addition that prohibits the use of Repetitious Usernames (#887), which in the context of my review seemed quite pertinent and something worth further discussion. The Username Policy states that “Your username can be virtually any string of characters (subject to a few technical limitations). However, it should be a name which other users will be comfortable with and which does not interfere with the project.” And goes on further to state, in reference to dealing with inappropriate usernames, “Consider leaving well enough alone: If the name is not unambiguously problematic, it may be sensible to ignore it.”
Repetitious usernames may seem silly and unsightly to many, but the current Username Policy does not intend to make reference to subjective visual aesthetics when speaking about maintaining user comfort – And certainly the living truth of the matter is that no user with a repetitious username has been sanctioned, warned or formally asked to change it in the past. If existing users are made ‘uncomfortable’ by someone who wants to be known as “cycycycy”, then they need to grow up and edit some articles instead of getting their knickers in a twist over something as petty as that; “Hitler was right” is username that should make users uncomfortable, rightly so, and this is what the username policy mandates action against, not the former example. On a side note, it is equally possible that the Edit Filter is intended as some kind of ill-conceived anti-vandalism mechanism, but this would have even weaker policy justification, and thus probably not worth discussing until such a time that someone asserts that the filter is an anti-vandalism mechanism.
Now, the concern here is that an Edit Filter has been used to implement a questionable policy interpretation with little to no consensus behind the reasoning. If there was any consensus on this edit filter then it would have be among a small number of Wikipedia’s greatest edit filter contributors whose efforts I respect, but whom are not policy experts, and whom can barely determine when it’s appropriate to use the Private filter flag let alone make judgements calls about filters such as this. That is not consensus, even if it did occur, which is doubtful in this instance.
There’s just no smudging it; This filter enforces a standard upon new users for which there is no clear justification within the current policy framework. It lacks consensus, and therefore the Administrator who implemented this filter has acted ultra vires to the authority vested in them by the community. The Edit Filter functionality must not be used to surreptitiously supplant the role of consensus in terms of site policies and guidelines as has occurred here.
Happy to discuss further. If my understanding of this filter is incorrect then please correct and accept my apologies. If my understanding is correct, then the only acceptable remediation is that the filter be disabled until an amendment to the username policy can be made that prohibits the user of usernames with repetition in them. «l|Promethean|l» (talk) 03:41, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
PS: Amusingly the filter in question is currently Private, but there is little justification for this visibility setting. If the filter is enforcing a username standard in addition to the username policy, then users have a moral *right* to know how much repetition is acceptable… and certainly if a user did try to circumvent the filter they’d be able to do so in about two attempts at most, by removing or reducing the repetition – This filter doesn't appear to be designed to stop someone registering, but rather intended to ensure they pick a likeable username that blends in with everyone else. Hence, the current visibility setting is unjustified and constitutes yet another example of questionable edit filter user judgement when it comes to withholding information from the community; George Orwell would be proud.
I've now made the filter public. I think its recent history shows that it quite closely approximates the letter of the policy: "a name which other users will be comfortable with and which does not interfere with the project", given that it currently catches names such as, to quote from some of the last few days' hits:
and
none of which particularly inspire confidence, as in general such usernames are hard for others to remember or distinguish from other usernames, something which makes them very likely to be an impediment to other editors. (For example, is it Fvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv or Fvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv? Vicky vicky vicky vicky vicky or Vicky vicky vicky vicky?) I'd also draw attention to its very low hit rate: such repetitious usernames are a tiny, tiny fraction of overall username registrations (typically about 10 per day), and is unlikely to more than very mildly inconvenience the vast majority of new users, while preventing quite a lot of problematic usernames (and associated user behavior), as well as one long-established and very persistent LTA. Any new users who are inconvenienced by the filter need only choose another username, and they can still register. -- The Anome ( talk) 16:39, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
-- The Anome ( talk) 16:33, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
From editing? This filter does not fire during editing at all, only during account creation. — xaosflux Talk 11:36, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
lcase(accountname) rlike "(...).*\1.*\1.*\1"
, but I feel like there's a whole lot of unnecessary hyperbole in this discussion. This isn't even close to a hill worth metaphorically dying on.
Writ Keeper
⚇
♔
13:45, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
It just occurred to me: For usability reasons, we might want to also customise the error message displayed to users so as to inform them that their registration was denied because the user name was detected as repetitious / inappropriate. Right now the generic message is used, which makes it sound like the mere act of registering is disruptive and blocked, with no explanation as to how they can achieve compliance with recent interpretations of the username policy. «l|Promethean|l» (talk) 14:13, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
@ Writ Keeper: Erm ... what have we agreed upon in the closed thread immediately above? : Noyster (talk), 20:01, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
couldn't agree more withthat and with my opinion that there was too much hyperbole in the conversation. So it sounded from what they wrote like the concern that they had opened the thread for was addressed, and it sounded like a good time to close it. Writ Keeper ⚇ ♔ 21:01, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Edit_filter_noticeboard#Revisit_guideline_to_post_about_new_disallowing_filters regarding a discussion for possibly changing notification requirements for disallow filters. — xaosflux Talk 20:59, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Recently, we've had several false positives where new users attempting to uncensor words in articles have had their edits disallowed. I'm relatively new to this scene, but I assume these types of false positives are a staple. I was wondering if it is possible to modify the filter so that it permits edits adding bad words if the only changes were to words that contained asterisks (the standard censoring character), or is that too complex for the filter language to handle? — Compassionate727 ( T· C) 03:28, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
What are the "security reasons" why non-privileged users can't use Special:AbuseFilter/test? From what I understand that's just a place to create new filters and try them against past edits, so nothing private is revealed. Is it some kind of DOS concern? I have some vague ideas for dealing with a particularly persistent IP-hopper, but I'd need to experiment quite a bit before I can propose anything concrete. Suffusion of Yellow ( talk) 17:35, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
I was warned that I was citing a predatory open access journal when I made this edit [17] not sure why. Tornado chaser ( talk) 03:56, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
I wasn't able to figure this out from a quick skim of the documentation: is it possible for an EF to use the output of a Lua script in a page, particularly in the edit notice? I.e. the edit notice has a template that invokes a lua function that can examine the edit more carefully than the usual regexps, and maybe call similar backend functions to the ones EF's use. Then it would generate a result (token in the edit buffer or whatever) that the EF could see and act on.
I'm asking because something like this could possibly help combat the current DOS attack against the reference desks. They are currently semi-protected til mid-November, which is painful since they do get frequent good contributions from unregistered users. Thanks. 173.228.123.166 ( talk) 00:43, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Xaosflux: Not that I can do it here, but how could I set up a username filter? I have a problem with someone creating accounts with near-identical usernames on another wiki.-- Laun chba ller 23:00, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
action == 'createaccount'
, accountname rlike (something)
, and set it to disallow. —
xaosflux
Talk
00:19, 4 January 2019 (UTC)Would that allow usernames with changing numbers though, e.g. if I was getting abuse from consecutive users called Vote4pedro and Vote5pedro would it stop the creation of a user account called Vote6pedro?-- Laun chba ller 12:50, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
A number of IPs making edits like this [18] (admins only, rev-deleted). Given the content of the edit and the edit-summary, I was sure we had a filter that caught some of the words in it. Black Kite (talk) 02:36, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Stop Predatory Journals maintains a list of hijacked journals. We could get domains from those and implement edit filters to make sure no one is citing the hijacked versions. Going to ping JzG ( talk · contribs) on this, but others will the technical ability could do this. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 00:07, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
When I run WP:REFILL on [19], I get the error:
Warning: An automated filter has identified this edit as containing references to one of the following self-publishing companies: AuthorHouse, Trafford Publishing, iUniverse, Lulu.com or Xlibris. Please be aware that self-published sources may be vanity publishing and rarely meet Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources.
The problem is, I have no idea which particular reference it's complaining about. There's 19 references, and 5 possible companies mentioned. None of the company names appear in the text. So, I have no idea what it's complaining about. Is there some way to get the filter to tell me exactly which reference failed? -- RoySmith (talk) 17:56, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:Username policy#Utility of reports by DatBot. Any input is welcome. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:07, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Edit filter/False positives/Blocks is at MfD. The page appears to have little use and so might be deleted, but I see that it was intended for explanations of edit filter problems since it is linked at MediaWiki:Abusefilter-blocked and MediaWiki:Abusefilter-degrouped so I thought it should be mentioned here. Perhaps the interface pages should link to Wikipedia:Edit filter/False positives? Johnuniq ( talk) 02:22, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
What are they? TheEditster ( talk) 03:11, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm interested in helping out with the edit filters since I rely heavily on them for patrolling. Eventually I'd be interested in gaining helper access, since my big area of interest is in catching promo/spam and a lot of those filters are private, but I recognize I should probably show that I'm useful and trustworthy before asking for that kind of access. I speak regex fairly well. Are there any things I could do to help around here to get started? Thank you in advance! creffett ( talk) 01:35, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
I've seen a couple cases where someone pasted base64-encoded image data into a page (so, for example, it contained "" which appears to be a standard JPEG header - see [20] as an example). Is that something worth creating a filter for? creffett ( talk) 02:00, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
For example, I had a preview message in Agile software development, triggered several filters after cleaning several citations. I thought I'd come back to it, but there's no apparement way of retrieving the EF warnings after saving. Is there a way of knowing what EFs are triggered, and by what strings of text? Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 17:27, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
891 in this case was the one that triggered). Galobtter ( pingó mió) 17:35, 8 June 2019 (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 filter folks, your feedback and constructive criticism would be welcome ( here) for my first filter.
Due to persistent disruption involving changes of pronouns contrary to consensus at Leslie Feinberg, and half a dozen fruitless conversations at the Talk page (most recent/current discussion: here) about how to prevent it, I finally created an edit filter to warn against pronoun changes. Your feedback would be welcome at Talk:Leslie Feinberg#Edit filter notice. Further details about the whys and wherefores at the Filter talk page. Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 22:21, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
What RegEx syntax do Wikipedia abuse filters use? Thank you - MrJaroslavik ( talk) 18:04, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi EF Team,
I note a couple of issues;
1. Multiple warnings for a single edit, in the worst case seen, 2 initial warning and a final warning for one edit.
2. Mistype/imported/other invalid IP address geting a warning and in fact the warning created the page.
Obviously issue 2 is an issue, however the effect is negligible other than an extra unneeded page that will never get used again, whereas issue 1 could be viewed as urgent, as this throws multiple warnings and a bluntish final warning to a potentially helpful and contributing editor that may dishearten them and reduce their future contributions. I can probably find the pages concerned if needed to demonstrate and provide an example, however, unfortunately I clean cookies/history etc quite often and would need to hunt a bit. 121.99.108.78 ( talk) 07:17, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Ref to 2 above User talk:2.26.93.179 created by USER:CLCStudent via TW via edit filter and IP add has never been used to edit at all, ref to 1 above going to be much harder to find but working on it. 121.99.108.78 ( talk) 00:46, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Bump Suffusion of Yellow, I am all done, I think, happy to help or add if needed though 121.99.108.78 ( talk) 08:57, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Mistype/imported/other invalid IP address. There IP editor attempted this, and CLCStudent warned them for it. Can you clarify? Suffusion of Yellow ( talk) 20:19, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
I've seen a number of edits like this, in which an editor (usually IP) adds a ref at the beginning of the article (before or after hatnotes and infoboxes). I don't know if this merits an edit filter; I've seen it about 4-5 times in the past year.
Also, do we catch links inserted as the first entry in an external links section? I see that one more frequently, and such edits are rarely useful. A quick perusal of the active edit filters suggests we don't, but I may have missed it. Mind matrix 01:42, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi everyone! I'm creating this discussion in order to provide everyone with some information regarding edit filter #51. As a highly-watched filter that many users look to for LTA pattern hits and early detection and intervention, I felt it was important to make sure that the changes I just made are announced, communicated, and made available to the community so that users who rely on this filter can adjust their links, scripts, log search filters, etc accordingly.
As of about 15 minutes ago, edit filter #51 is now split into two filters - edit filter #51 (the same filter ID), and edit filter #53. Moving forward, edit filter 51 will now handle the LTA new username pattern hits, and edit filter #53 will handle the LTA content edit and edit summary pattern hits. This split was necessary due to the total size of its regex code. Since I published its first revision years ago, I've worked to add, improve, fix, tighten, and resolve holes with it in order to make it an accurate and reliable filter log for the community to use. Unfortunately, these efforts have resulted in the regex code becoming massive in character count and size. This morning, I exceeded the maximum character size allowed in a single edit filter's regex code when I attempted to save a new revision of the code. This results in the bottom-most characters being chopped off of the end of the regex code, resulting in a malformed mess being saved. Splitting this edit filter into two separate edit filters was the best way to resolve this issue moving forward.
In a nutshell, you'll just need to watch both edit filters 51 and 53 moving forward if you wish to be provided with the same logs that you're used to seeing. If anyone has any questions, please let me know and I'll be happy to answer them. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 20:27, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
A user vandalized the Iowa page, which the filters didn't stop, but when I tried to undo it, the filters did stop me. 2001:470:8CEE:0:286E:503B:731A:D2 ( talk) 00:57, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
WP:Edit filter/Documentation seems largely redundant to https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:AbuseFilter/Rules_format, and it's incomplete (and I would guess out of date as well). Shouldn't the former mostly just point to the latter? E Eng 00:37, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Edit filter has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the article intro please change the following:
X: "warn the editor, revoke their autoconfirmed status, and/or disallow the edit entirely." to
Y: "warn the editor, revoke their autoconfirmed status, and disallow the edit entirely."
in keeping with
MOS:ANDOR (pick one or the other, or say "not both" if that possibility is important). --
109.76.200.104 (
talk)
22:28, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
After seeing some Wikipedia clones being inserted into articles as sources, it seems like this might be a good place to use the edit filter. After all, they're unlikely to be useful to readers, and often not too easy-to-spot for someone quickly trying to add sources (especially for niche topics). At least, warning would probably be a good idea. Elliot321 ( talk | contribs) 22:35, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
At Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard#Attempt to add Cheng Lei's official CGTN profile (archived on the Wayback Machine) to Cheng Lei (journalist) I inquired about adding a profile from CGTN of Cheng Lei to the respective article. I would like to have it in her article but the edit filter blocks it. Is there a way it can get an exception? WhisperToMe ( talk) 19:48, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Its showing again and again. Avijain911211 ( talk) 10:14, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
See
MediaWiki talk:Abusefilter-disallowed#Question. Why is the $1
variable excluded from the message? It makes no sense and can lead to various problems, like, for example, a user performing a constructive edit but cannot see the $1
. This makes it harder for the user to know what filter was tripped and can make the user extremely confused. I have a
version that I am working on to incorporate the $1
.
54nd60x (
talk)
09:00, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
An edit was made on Newcastle United F.C. correcting a red link to one that exists; I'm not sure how it managed to trigger an edit filter in this case. Iggy ( Swan) ( Contribs) 19:16, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
735 -- changing the owner in a sports infobox. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 19:32, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) § Adding a new edit filter trigger action: pop-up box. {{u|
Sdkb}}
talk
23:08, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Edit filter has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
=======ACADEMIC Marcelius Martirosianas dualiseanna Nobel 2017=2o22 30 juni HCM Bon AcademiC Garbes Doctor expert Nobelio Diplom instudy China 2o22 11 Auguste Humboldt universitycaf ACADEMIC 212.122.71.230 ( talk) 11:27, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
In the last month, filter 890 disallowed creation of several accounts with names that do not look random: Rchrchrls, Blkfrncsno14, Blkfrncsno1431, Atlslscsrv-app, Httpswtfkev, Sssbbbccc, Shbhmsngh23, Thrtlvlmdnght, Bbbqqqwww, JfrnXndrsn, Aceyxngcxspxr, Fapklsllsdn2120, Fapklsllsdn21, JLMJLMJLM14159, and Chrstnjmt. Even if there had been no false positives it is set to disallow account creations, some of which would have been in good faith - not everyone who wants a random name is a vandal, and creation of a random username is not vandalism (unlike, for example, creation of an offensive username). Would it be better set to warn? Peter James ( talk) 23:26, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
There are also false positives with filter 887, and many are more predictable - typically a series of four letters three or four times (sometimes with a number), such as ToriToriTori2 - which is not random or too long. The filter has been modified to disallow these, but there is no basis in username policy for it; there seems to be consensus that a username with the same letter 8 times in succession is acceptable. This could also be set to warn. Most of the disruptive names caught by these filters are not disruptive because of their repetition or randomness, but because they also contain a non-random part with offensive words, or are too long. Peter James ( talk) 23:26, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
In case anyone missed the recent Tech News:
str_replace_regexp()
function can be used in
abuse filters to replace parts of text using a
regular expression.
[21]– Certes ( talk) 10:34, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Is it intentional that edits which are disallowed are still visible to anybody by searching the filter logs, even when not logged in (i.e. in an incognito window)? I've got an example, but it didn't seem wise to post the URL here, so email me if you're interested. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:41, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
abusefilter-log-detail
permission for public filters. It should probably not be a permission that everyone, including anonymous users, has considering what could be in some of the edits.
PhantomTech[
talk
16:14, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
abusefilter-view-private
or abusefilter-modify
abusefilter-log-private
, abusefilter-view-private
, or abusefilter-modify
abusefilter-privatedetails
and abusefilter-log-detail
abusefilter-privatedetails
but I am able to see the details of hits on private filters. All of those permission have a counterpart for filters without "Hide details of this filter from public view" checked, which is granted to everyone.
PhantomTech[
talk
16:51, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
abusefilter-privatedetails
is basically a checkuser permission for viewing IP addresses from filter hits, and there's a log at
Special:Log/abusefilterprivatedetails. Only checkusers have it. It's kind of separate from other filter and checkuser stuff - you have to know where to look, and deliberately do so, in order to use it. --
zzuuzz
(talk)
18:17, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
abusefilter-view-private
or abusefilter-modify
) and (abusefilter-log-private
, abusefilter-view-private
, or abusefilter-modify
)
PhantomTech[
talk
18:30, 6 August 2022 (UTC)References
![]() | This page 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. |
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.
PhantomTech ( t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created ( xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ( blocks · rights · moves) · rfar · spi · cci)
I started working with these filters about two weeks ago in false positives, since then I've been pretty active in that area and doing a bit in the filter requests section. Right now I can't view some of the filters which delays (admittedly not by too long) some false positive reports that I otherwise wouldn't have a problem dealing with. Additionally I've been working on User:ThePhantomBot, a bot that detects LTA among other things, and going through the filters to see which can be offloaded onto my bot would help cut down the total number of edit filters. To be clear, I don't plan on disabling any filters that I set my bot to detect until my bot has been approved and the filter in question has been tested with my bot. I'll admit that two weeks isn't a long time for working on filters, but hopefully I've shown that I can be trusted to not do something reckless. I have quite a bit of experience with regex coming from having to make a regex based chat filter for something off-wiki. PhantomTech ( talk) 21:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
abusefilter-view-private
access for most of the work you want to do (as opposed to the dangerous abusefilter-modify
permission), unfortunately the only usergroup with that permission is Administrators. A new user group "Edit filter reviewers" or the like could be created to allow private-read access, if community consensus could be demonstrated (perhaps in a new section below). It would have a lower barrier to entry, you are not the first person who has asked for this type of access (e.g. sysops of other projects that want to copy our filters). —
xaosflux
Talk
10:18, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
{{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
11:07, 26 March 2015 (UTC){{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
15:54, 26 March 2015 (UTC){{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
19:25, 29 March 2015 (UTC){{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
19:25, 29 March 2015 (UTC){{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
19:25, 29 March 2015 (UTC)The few times I will actually change filters prior to my bot's approval... should be "none". I'm not an admin, so I can not give you the bit, but I've been around here long enough to know that this request is very likely to be ultimately declined. Your lack of interest or willingness to spend time reading and modifying filters on testwiki first by requesting them be copied there and making edits there and requesting changes be made here based on your changes there is an indication that you probably should not have the bit to even read the filters here. Based on this, I'm no longer willing to give you the bit you would need on testwiki to make this happen. I'm no longer going to watch this discussion, and I wish you luck if you wish to pursue this request further. —
{{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
21:35, 29 March 2015 (UTC)What does "GP disruption" mean? -- TL22 ( talk) 01:52, 3 April 2015 (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.
We've had lengthy discussions about conditions and the condition limit, but what governs how long an edit filter's run time is? I bring this up because Special:AbuseFilter/673 seems to be taking around 57ms, which is colossal compared to others and I can't see why; it's a pretty short filter. Sam Walton ( talk) 09:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
I went through the least active 50 filters and disabled two that haven't had any hits this year: 311 and 358. Dragons flight ( talk) 18:06, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
I propose to create a new user group "Edit filter helpers" (local version of global group) that has the abusefilter-view-private
permission applied to it. Also propose to add +/- group changes to this new group to the existing administrators group. This will allow us to grant view access to users that only require the access to view private filters, but do not meet the thresholds to be able to modify them. Potential candidates would be non-enwiki admins that operate certain bots, guest admins and efm's from other wiki's that want to re-use our settings, users that may respond to false positive reports.
abuse filter helpers
abusefilter-view-private
permission to this groupadministrators
{{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
05:30, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
{{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
15:54, 5 April 2015 (UTC){{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
19:01, 9 April 2015 (UTC)I've been doing a little patching T30844 T53294 T87862 T90754 to the AbuseFilter extension. Does anyone have any feature requests that you'd like someone to look at? (No promises.) Dragons flight ( talk) 05:06, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
This isn't really a request related to edit filter functionality itself, but if there were a "console" so to speak to test out all the functions like ccnorm
, that would be incredible. I envision a textarea where I can type in what would be the pre-saved wikimarkup, then have a select dropdown of
all the functions (ccnorm, count, str_replace, etc.), and a "Run" button that would then show me how the functions would interpret it. Right now it's more of a trial and error scenario. I edit my sandbox, then use the batch tester to run my filter against it and see if it matches the edit based on what I think the functions are doing. —
MusikAnimal
talk
20:48, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
It could be a useful addition to be able to check who a page's creator is. I thought this was already a feature but then couldn't find it. Sam Walton ( talk) 20:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
article_first_contributor
, but that's not listed at
mw:Extension:AbuseFilter/Rules format. Could you, while you're working on this, double check if anything else is missing from that page?
Sam Walton (
talk)
21:01, 1 April 2015 (UTC)List of all recognized symbols and keywords
|
---|
' - ! != !== " % & ( ) * ** */ , / /* : := ; ? [ ] ^ | + < <= == === > >= accountname action added_lines added_lines_pst added_links all_links article_articleid article_first_contributor article_namespace article_prefixedtext article_recent_contributors article_restrictions_create article_restrictions_edit article_restrictions_move article_restrictions_upload article_text bool ccnorm contains contains contains_any count edit_delta edit_diff edit_diff_pst else end false file_sha1 file_size float if in int ip_in_range irlike lcase length like matches minor_edit moved_from_articleid moved_from_namespace moved_from_prefixedtext moved_from_text moved_to_articleid moved_to_namespace moved_to_prefixedtext moved_to_text new_html new_pst new_size new_text new_wikitext norm null old_links old_size old_wikitext rcount regex removed_lines removed_links rescape rlike rmdoubles rmspecials rmwhitespace set set_var specialratio str_replace string strlen strpos substr summary then timestamp true ucase user_age user_blocked user_editcount user_emailconfirm user_groups user_name user_rights |
On this subject, some syntax highlighting, requested at phab:T39192, would be much appreciable for code readability. Cenarium ( talk) 22:05, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Dragons flight, would it be possible to add the ability to check if edits have tripped other filters? Say an edit trips filter 600 and 650, I could then create a filter which looks for edits which tripped both filters. I think this could be useful for the broader edit filters; we could save on duplicating checks by simply writing 'Did the edit flag this other filter?' Not sure how hard this would be to implement though as I don't know the details of how edits are checked against filters. Thanks, Sam Walton ( talk) 18:06, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
!("confirmed" in user_groups)
or (article_namespace == 0)
within the edit filter system, so these queries are only made once for each edit. —
SMALL
JIM
09:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't know how much time you've got, but someone should mention, an edit/changes summary log instead of annotating changes in the notes section. Also, the ability to view a diff before saving changes. I once wanted to know if someone was editing the talk page of a blocked user, but found I couldn't. Not that common I'll admit. Thanks :) -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:15, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
See the history of {{ UK MP links}}. I imagine that edits like those would be quite hard to trap using regular expressions, but much easier if the underlying software allowed an edit filter to test a temporary copy of the text that had the HTML comments stripped out. -- John of Reading ( talk) 06:36, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Messages such as a MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning-advertising say "go to the bottom of this page and click 'Save page' again", which is incorrect if the edit was made via the Visual Editor. See WP:HD#"Your edit has triggered a filter...". Is this fixable? -- John of Reading ( talk) 06:11, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
What is Edit filter Beals? Both a good-faith edit that I made and a good-faith edit by another editor were blocked by this filter at about 1530 GMT on 13 May. On searching, I see that there is a sockmaster named David Beals. Is this filter designed to block edits by his sockpuppets, or does it have some other purpose? I have filed a false positive report. Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:51, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
No. | Feature request | Benefit or Purpose | Phabricator no |
---|---|---|---|
1 | Special:AbuseLog should be filterable by action taken, e.g. "disallow" | disallowing filters and disallowed edits would be monitored more effectivelly (for falls positives etc.) | T50961 |
I would like a way to keep track of where the <graph> and <property> parser functions are being used in the main namespace. Both of these are generally meant to be used more in templates and other non-main namespace pages, though curious if/how they are being used directly in the main namespace.
I am also somewhat curious about having a tag for all graphs also. (there is a page_prop, so these can be found with Special:PagesWithProps, but would be useful to find these in recent changes)
(article_namespace == 0) &
(lcase(added_lines) rlike "<\s?graph")
tag: 'graphmain' (for main namespace) and possibly another filter to tag 'graph' (for all namespaces).
(article_namespace == 0) &
(lcase(added_lines) rlike "<\s?property")
tag: 'property'
or we could just tags all edits with the tags
(lcase(added_lines) rlike "<\s?graph")
and then can filter by namespace in Special:Recentchanges. that might be the best option, at least for graph.
Aude ( talk) 06:02, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
When I edit a filter (on Swedish Wikipedia) there is a label called "Statistics" and a text that shall inform about how long time it takes to run the filter and how many conditions that are used. Those values are not shown. "$4" and "$5" is shown instead. I think it started to look like this today. Does it look the same on English Wikipedia? Does anyone know what is wrong? Svensson1 ( talk) 10:29, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
While going through wikipedia:Edit_filter/False_positives page, I came across Wikipedia:Edit_filter/False_positives#90.208.8.194 this discussion. While it seems to have been replied by an admin but feel there may be some scope to revisit the discussion by some admin who is experienced edit filter manager. Actually claimed (false) positive seems to be about user signature in article, hit to Special:AbuseFilter/613 and warn message is quite ok. But the filter no. Special:AbuseFilter/623 is also about simmiller purpose and it disallows edit. While filter no Special:AbuseFilter/623 is private and I can not see it but my logic is if Special:AbuseFilter/623 hits first wrong edit itself and disallows an edit then there wont be any need of Special:AbuseFilter/613, or else Special:AbuseFilter/623 should catch second attempt and not first attempt.
In any case prima facia answer given to the ip user seems to be different one than what the filters were doing ? So I felt that if the answer giving admin has exmined false positives with given filters then, let some edit filter manager peer review what exactly happening at Special:AbuseFilter/623.
Mahitgar ( talk) 08:42, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
I was thinking about ways to collaborate with many users about things like LTA cases when I realized that filter managers don't really have any effective way (that I'm aware of) to communicate about private filters. Public filters can quite easily be discussed here or on the requests page, but, for obvious reasons, private filter discussion has to be very limited in public places like these. The only currently existing ways I'm aware of that allow discussion of private filters are emailing someone (which requires you know who is going to be able to help the most) or using the filters comments, which can be seen by anyone working on the filters but probably wont be noticed unless they're actively paying attention to that filter. Since there's an apparent lack of a way to have a wider discussion about private filters, I'm proposing that a private mailing list (abusefilter-en or similar) be created. The mailing list would be meant to be used only for discussing private filters, since using other places to discuss public ones would allow for more input than the mailing list. It could also be used by non-subscribers to request private filters. Here's the meta page on mailing lists. PHANTOMTECH ( talk) 23:37, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
I reported Wikipedia:Edit_filter/Requested#Persistant_spam this request. For confidentiality purposes if edit filter managers do not want give details what they will be doing or not doing is quite ok. But atleast if some one replies saying that the message has been taken note of then reporting person will feel good and report it again next time. It is not about my request, but otherwise also co-operating users are dealt with un understood silence may be revisited by edit filter managers.
Rgds Mahitgar ( talk) 09:04, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
User:Samwalton9 yes, I understand this dificulty..Any way I have noted few more instances of the same spam at Wikipedia:Edit_filter/Requested#Persistant_spam latest being dated 8th June. Rather than those admins doing the same deletion work again and again if they spare a little time over with edit filter, it may save their valuable time. But alas, at times saving of time and efforts also takes its own time.
Thanks for your reply and best wishes
Mahitgar ( talk) 17:38, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
As a result of the recent discussion on edit filters and how they're used I've opened a section at the Village pump regarding the possibility of creating policies regarding the filter. Your opinions are welcome. Sam Walton ( talk) 00:43, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I've made a few changes to the main page, moving the extended documentation off to its own page at Wikipedia:Edit filter/Documentation and updating this page to be more of an information page. I've added some information from recent threads on edit filters to steer it towards the current community consensus on how filters should be used. Your input is welcome and please feel free to change or expand the page. Sam Walton ( talk) 19:42, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Special:AbuseFilter/examine/log/12627707
Maybe we need to analyse this EF in a little more detail.
All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough,
14:58, 11 July 2015 (UTC).
I'd like to request some additional eyes on Special:AbuseFilter/651, a IP vandal targeted filter created by User:Callanecc six months that seems very broad (e.g. IP ranges with /11 and /12 and broad page categories). While there is some vandalism in there, the false positive rate seems pretty high for a full disallow filter. Also, given that it has been six months, is this particular vandal still active? The related SPI, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AfricaTanz, hasn't been updated since December. Dragons flight ( talk) 01:39, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Could we disable 648? It only has ever had 140 hits, and seems to be obsolescent if not obsolete. All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough,
00:36, 14 July 2015 (UTC).
User:Samwalton9: Can we disable 623 yet, if not can we temporarily disable 613? All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough,
15:10, 14 July 2015 (UTC).
I propose that Filter 2 becomes a standard private test filter. It will allow us to test private filters privately, with out, perhaps, chewing through filter numbers quite so fast.
All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough,
18:36, 17 July 2015 (UTC).
From anonymous user: What's the point of this filter, why can't I find any details on WHY it filters, who made it and who decided it should be employed? I was filtered for trying to constructively argue on a TALK page!!! Why should a bot be allowed to exist on wikipedia that "filters" (it acts more like a fascist censor, apparently) when it includes no curse words or racial epithets? Or anything else stupid like all-caps texts or ASCII art or something like this? I wish I could find the author of this program and go "filter," of all of his edits! There was absolutely nothing wrong with my edit, or any bad words or anything like this. This own particular reply of mine on the talk page of this fascist bot isn't quite as level-headed but that's because I am very angry! Maybe this is how the old guard scares off potential new editors? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.132.236.51 ( talk • contribs)
:::
was added to the ASCII art filter. I can easily see this as a simple mistake, but it was left like this for some time. All due respect, but please give due caution to filters that disallow, and always monitor filter hits after making such changes —
MusikAnimal
talk
04:45, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
There seems to be an issue in the names of articles as displayed on a the test page. Possibly one or more invisible characters, or non-breaking spaces instead of genuine spaces. Regardless cutting and pasting the names into the rules often doesn't work. We need to hunt this down and raise a bug. I'll do it eventually, but if someone else does it first, all the better. All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough,
11:19, 25 July 2015 (UTC).
@ Dragons Flight, Zzuuzz, Samwalton9, and Smalljim: We are reaching condition limit for less that 1 in 1000 edits, but less would be better. Of course we have discussed asking to have this figure raised. But it occurs to me that there is may be a subtle way of avoiding it that lies in our hands. I use the word "condition" naively in the following discussion.
Every edit gets hit by every filter, so generating at least "n" conditions.
Many filters test for "newbie" status as the first condition, suppose for simplicity they all do. Then every "newbie" edit would get hit with "2n" conditions (minimum).
By reordering the conditions it may be possible to reduce the peak number, and reduce the proportion that hit the condition limit. Drawback: Overall efficiency would probably fall.
Comments?
All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough,
15:31, 19 July 2015 (UTC).
added_lines irlike some-complex-regex
as the first line in the filter? —
SMALL
JIM
16:20, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
If anyone wants to work at cutting conditions, the worst filter for conditions (I think) is Special:AbuseFilter/31 which can hit 70+ conditions. Large lists using contains_any rack up a lot of conditions, and it really should be converted to a regex. Dragons flight ( talk) 23:06, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Just added hidden Special:AbuseFilter/714 but this is my first filter; would appreciate review and comment prior to activation. It passed the parser checker etc. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert ( talk) 19:39, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Filter 688 isn't working: it should block certain edits to User talk:Mike Rosoft and when run in test mode [1], it shows hits, but it isn't logging or preventing them live. What's wrong, or what am I doing wrong? — SMALL JIM 15:49, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
For example:
<very unlikely to be true cheap condition> & ( :"foo" in lcase added_lines & :!"foo" in lcase removed_lines )
might well be efficient but it counts as two conditions (AIUI) one for the condition and one for the parenthesis.
Conversely the awful:
"foo" in lcase added_lines &
!"foo" in lcase removed_lines
also (again AIUI) counts as two conditions.
All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough,
00:54, 14 July 2015 (UTC).
"foo" in lcase( added_lines ) &
!"foo" in lcase( removed_lines )
Take a look at wikt:Special:Contributions/Glory_of_Space. I am curious if Wikipedia has found it fruitful to write an edit filter against this vandal; if so, can Wiktionary copy that filter? (People like bd2412 and Thryduulf are admins on both sites and could presumably copy the filter over if it is private.) I wouldn't necessarily turn it on on Wiktionary unless the vandalism becomes a repeat problem, but it seems like a good idea to have it at hand. -sche ( talk) 20:13, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
It would be nice to have some standard wordings for this common "false positive".
I would like to achieve the following goals:
All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough,
12:53, 5 August 2015 (UTC).
{{
EF}}
Make linking easy using {{
EF}}
- e.g. {{
EF|364}}
364. All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough,
18:52, 6 August 2015 (UTC).
The following is a complete list of the active hidden filters:
Of these, I would suggest that the argument for hiding the filter isn't very strong for the following ten cases.
Most of these do pretty much what you'd expect based on the short description, so one can mostly guess what the filter is doing even though the details are hidden. In the spirit of openness, I tend to think that filters shouldn't be hidden unless there is a good reason to think that specific vandals will use knowledge of the filter code to deliberately defeat them. So, I'd like to suggest that we unhide these ten filters. However, I wanted to seek second opinions before doing so, as well as let other people look at the list of hidden filters in case there are other examples where hiding the details is probably not accomplishing much. Dragons flight ( talk) 01:16, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
I just created hidden Special:AbuseFilter/714 and believe it should stay that way but open to independent review. Georgewilliamherbert ( talk) 19:37, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
There appears to be a bug disallowing variable names starting with "ex". Perhaps "ex" has a special meaning, possible related to numbers "9.53ex8"?
Even if it does still looks like a parse bug to me.
All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough,
19:18, 6 August 2015 (UTC).
I see a ton of the changing of names in BLP infoboxes. I'm not sure what 364 is tagging (
Special:Tags doesn't list any, possibly possible libel or vandalism
?), but I see a ton of vandalism of this sort. I'm not sure of how the filter is written, but it doesn't seem to be hugely effective, and it's certainly needed. If anybody could take a look at it it would be great.
Kharkiv07 (
T)
19:43, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi all. Newyorkbrad has started a draft for creating a guideline or policy to place on WP:EF in response to ArbCom's encouragement that a guideline or policy should be formed for edit filters' use. Please review Wikipedia:Edit Filter/Draft and alter/comment as you wish. I think the idea is to form a solid draft between the edit filter managers and interested community members before taking it to a proper RfC. Sam Walton ( talk) 09:45, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Just a heads up that with the latest update to MediaWiki [6], these are no longer effective. The latter, originally intended for long-term abuse, might still be useful but we'd need someone to keep an eye on it to ensure it's targeting who it's supposed to, as the hit count is going to be considerably low. Pinging original author NawlinWiki — MusikAnimal talk 20:22, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
As part of our efforts to improve the use of the edit filter, an edit filter noticeboard has been created. We hope that this will be a better venue for users to discuss and ask questions about edit filters, whilst also freeing up WT:EF for discussion of the corresponding project page. Sam Walton ( talk) 15:39, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Special:AbuseFilter/31 There have been a couple of false positive reports recently about this filter, which is supposed to block ASCII art, blocking edits to math formulas. I don't know if this was maybe caused by recent edits, or the problem was always there. Examples: Special:AbuseLog/12875270, Special:AbuseLog/12876144. Someguy1221 ( talk) 22:52, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
^\s+
would be a useful test under which to group the matches for multi-line graphics, such as the original goatse. A lot of the conditions in this filter appear to be targeted at multi-line graphics and, looking at recent hits, these don't seem to be attempted much these days. A change like this would dramatically reduce the average condition count. —
SMALL
JIM
09:55, 18 August 2015 (UTC)Hey all,
Can someone who knows how to use edit filters reply at User talk:Technophant#Requesting editing privileges for WP:AN and my userpage please? Thanks, Mdann52 ( talk) 07:56, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
I've never seen this feature used before. Is there consensus against using it? — MusikAnimal talk 19:22, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Further to
Wikipedia:Edit_filter/False_positives/Reports/Archive_42#160.39.2.162, filter
716 should stop this sort of situation arising. Any comments? All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough,
23:24, 2 August 2015 (UTC).
365 stopped them. All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough,
03:31, 29 August 2015 (UTC).
Is there a way to block someone from using the term "Paul Easter" in an article? This is a bit tricky, but long story short there's a guy that has been trying to make an article for himself for the past year. He's made over a hundred sockpuppets, which you can look over here. By large these articles have been easily detected and deleted, but it takes up a lot of time and energy. McGeddon has requested a block on article titles with this name, but sometimes Easter will deliberately leave his name out of the title in an attempt to avoid detection. Is there anything that can be done with this? There's another person by the name of Paul Easter so there's likely not much that can be done, but I figure it's worth it to ask. The guy is pretty persistent and to be honest, I kind of see him as someone that will probably keep this up for a long while. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 09:30, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
726 should be tracking this. Will set to disallow if it works. Sam Walton ( talk) 10:34, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
58.
NawlinWiki has been dealing with this for years since early 2014. —
SMALL
JIM
10:44, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Just a reminder that there is currently work ongoing to create a guideline for edit filter use. Please feel free to improve it and/or join in discussions at the talk page. Sam Walton ( talk) 15:00, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Editors are invited to join a Request for Comment regarding the introduction of a proposed guideline for edit filter use. Please join the voting and discussion at Wikipedia:Edit filter/RfC. Sam Walton ( talk) 17:24, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi all - I'd like to request the edit filter manager permission.
Although I've only recently found out about WP:FLTR, I am really keen to help the project. For a long time I assumed something like this existed while patrolling pages and noticing tags such as "CSD removed" etc. I'd like to now put my experience to good use. Thanks for your consideration. samtar ( msg) 08:56, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I am regularly checking the deadlink spam filter and noticed a handling problem with "Edit filter logs" like [7]. In probably half of the cases one can easily guess, if the addition was a spam link. In those cases the main question of interest would be: is the spam link still present in the article or has it been removed by someone else? But there is no direct history link to get that article information without clicking through other pages first. 1) Would it be possible to add a link to the article's history for each entry? 2) Who needs to be asked for such a change? Thanks for any feedback and advice. GermanJoe ( talk) 15:22, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
During the recent RfC, a suggestion was made that edit filter managers should publicise that they created, or will create, a filter set to disallow edits. Davidwr proposed the following wording: "Except in urgent situations, edit filters must not be set to disallow without thorough testing and a notice to other edit-filter reviewers to give them time to review the filter for technical accuracy. In urgent situations, the notice may be made after-the-fact. Prior to and during the review of an edit filter which is set to "disallow" due to an emergency, the editor placing the edit filter is responsible for seeing that the logs are regularly monitored and false positives are minimized."
I like this idea a lot, I think one of the major issues editors have with the edit filter is how it's obscured within Special pages; posting a note to EFN stating that Filter X will be set to disallow after a week of testing gives everyone a heads up and allows other EFMs to help out and double check it prior to switching the disallow button, and gives the community an opportunity to voice their opinions. I wouldn't want this to compromise the filter's usefulness, so if non-EFMs/admins wanted to discuss the contents of a hidden filter, they can contact the mailing list wikipedia-en-editfilters for details (if a user in good standing).
I think the above wording is pretty good (I'd only want to make trivial alterations like explicitly naming the venue as EFN and mentioning the mailing list as I did) and I'd like to have a discussion about it before proposing it properly (RfC?); what are your thoughts? Sam Walton ( talk) 12:24, 17 November 2015 (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.
Should the following text be added to the 'Recommended uses' section?
Except in urgent situations, new edit filters must not be set to disallow without thorough testing and a notice at the noticeboard to give other edit filter managers and the community time to review the filter for technical accuracy and necessity. [1] In urgent situations, the notice may be made after-the-fact. Prior to and during the review of an edit filter which is set to "disallow" due to an emergency, the editor placing the edit filter is responsible for seeing that the logs are regularly monitored and false positives are minimized.
References
I am concerned that this will have a bad effect on filters designed to stop persistent vandals who do not necessarily rise to the level of LTA (yet). All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough,
20:44, 29 November 2015 (UTC).
See also phab:T62588 (Provide ability to watch for changes on filters). Helder 13:35, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
I naively thought
this filter would stop IPs like
81.158.98.222 (
talk ·
contribs), but it didn't. Why? Please fix if you can. Other means won't help - the socker launches a java script to spam talk pages from a preloaded list, and then hops to another IP within a vast and busy IP range. One batch of their edits occurs within a short time (limited only by software).
Materialscientist (
talk)
04:49, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
As per this current discussion at ANI, I'm wondering if an Edit filter could be created to prevent the addition of inappropriate and back-door personal attacking "barnstar" messages to user Talk pages? And the ANI case isn't the only recent example of this – an inappropriate "barnstar" was recently removed from my own Talk page by Kharkiv07. So, can anything be done about this?... TIA. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 17:02, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Two of my edits (to Binomial theorem and Tyler Ward) have tripped filter 550, which has the description "nowiki tags inserted into an article".
Based on the information at Help:Wiki markup, nowiki tags break or stop the parsing of wiki markup.
I fail to see what is wrong with having nowiki tags, unless someone maliciously adds a nowiki to something that needs to be parsed as wiki markup, such as a bunch of links or an infobox.
I guess my beef about the whole thing is that the page where you can look at all the times when a user has tripped a filter is Special:AbuseLog. The use of the word "abuse" conveys that the user is doing something he shouldn't be doing and that edits that trip filters are bad.
And what is the purpose of the nowiki filter anyway? Vandalism through use of nowikis seems very rare; in my year plus of editing experience I have yet to see people vandalise with nowikis.
Thank you,
Bad Weather 2014 My work • What's wrong? 13:59, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
The insertion of extraneous nowiki tags is still one of the biggest issues in visual editor, its one of the blocking issues about the wider rollout of the editor. Generally every time VE adds one its in error. If you look at the recent change log [11] it shows more than 50 mistakes a day. You get errors like Kebumen_City which don't have a visible effect but generate bad wikicode. As it addressed a specific set of bug it useful to separate out this from other extraneous markup filters. -- Salix alba ( talk): 06:15, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
As this is dealing with a Visual Editor bug could someone change filter 550 so it only looks at V/E edits and ignores edits done via the classic editor? That should prevent incidents like the one that started this thread. Ϣere SpielChequers 20:28, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Just a note to say I am absolutely certain that the vast majority of editors are completely unaware of how much their editing lives are improved by the quiet work done here. Unfortunately it's a little like being an intelligence agent, in that public accolades risk impairing the effectiveness of the very efforts being praised. I, at least, appreciate it. EEng ( talk) 09:24, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Does anyone know how the "pre-save transformed" variables such as added_lines_pst, removed_lines_pst, and edit_diff_pst differ from their normal counterparts? Prodego talk 20:50, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Please vote and join discussions at two RfCs regarding the edit filter, including the possibility of enabling its blocking ability. Sam Walton ( talk) 18:20, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
There's been a recent Idea Lab discussion about enabling the Edit filter's block function, and I'm aiming to make a couple of proposals as a result, but I'm not completely certain what to propose for one point, namely what the Guideline should say about blocking. Each method I think of has some shortfalls, but something like this would be my proposal: "The blocking function must not be enabled for a filter which has received any false positives in the past 30 days, and should only be used on filters where editors tripping the filter are always currently blocked manually. At least 3 administrators must agree that these requirements have been met, in a public venue such as the edit filter noticeboard prior to the enabling of this option."
While this isn't the proper RfC (so don't vote on this in particular!), do you think this is a sensible proposal or should it be more or less strict? Sam Walton ( talk) 14:42, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm a long term editor who also happens to be a computer programmer (25 years of flipping bits, mostly embedded stuff but with a bit of web things here and there - resume here). I often poke around on informal anti-vandal patrol now and then and have been looking for a way to contribute more to Wikipedia, preferably something that leverages my technical skills. I don't have a huge amount of time to spare, just a few hours a week, so applying to be an Administrator seemed a bit of overkill. User:KrakatoaKatie suggested I look helping out with Edit Filters.
Is this something I could help out with? If so, how would we proceed? I'll watch this page for a response.
Thanks KNHaw (talk) 23:40, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
What is with the pseudo-citations in the article linking to pseudo-random ArbCom decisions and what not? I count about 23 of them. Even if someone reverts a statement with basis in consensus, it is easy to revert, providing a link to the discussion. Esquivalience t 03:00, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Should the following be added to the user right section of the policy;
Any administrator who has the edit filter manager right and is desysoped under a cloud should also have their edit filter manager right removed, regardless if they held it prior to becoming an administrator. They may regain it through the normal process at edit filter noticeboard.
87.115.76.251 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) has recently added a significant amount of content. A lot of it I wholeheartedly agree with, but some of it is disputable, and we shouldn't being drawing conclusions directly into a guideline without clear consensus. I also think we might be going a little overboard in general by bloating the same information that we already had beforehand. No need to be that thorough, we should be concise. I've reverted the content for now, and have informed 87.115.76.251 of this so we can discuss further. Thanks — MusikAnimal talk 21:17, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
I have completed the documentation at Wikipedia:Edit filter/Documentation; feedback or fixes are appreciated. Esquivalience t 03:05, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello. I am an editor creating articles here. I have just expanded my scope to reviewing vandalism and other issues. I wanted advise on which filter will be good to review the following:
There are so many filters I see so I am confused.
Thank you. Xender Lourdes ( talk) 04:26, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Hope that helps! Sam Walton ( talk) 20:29, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
I was trying to change a quote in the Donald Regan article "expletive you" to "fuck you". In the past usually a flag was triggered when a valid edit was made. Now that is no longer the case. Preventing curse words to be in articles, when it is appropriate as in not having to censor a quote, seems to indicate a change in what Wikipedia espoused as a policy regarding censorship. 166.172.60.147 ( talk) 18:54, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Out of pure curiosity, I heard that the edit filter is capable of revoking one's autoconfirmed rights. This sounds like a very harsh action for a mere edit filter to take, so I was wondering:
1) Has this ever been used in any edit filters?
2) If not, in which circumstances is it designed to be used?
3) Does this temporarily disable your autoconfirmed rights, or does it strip your account of them and require you to ask at Requests for Permissions to get them back?
Thanks, Passengerpigeon ( talk) 22:07, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
It's getting on my nerves, always blocking out edits whenever least desired. It's the prime source of frustration for us editors. Snacker10 ( talk) 03:48, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
But if it is triggered, it should at least specify what did. Snacker10 ( talk) 03:59, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
What's the point of that anyway? If the filter is deleted, it means it's not going to be used anymore - so why can't any sensitive conditions/notes be blanked and the filter made public? Why are there private filters anyways, except for testing purposes? 50.199.236.1 ( talk) 13:04, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
I've had a request from the Turkish Wikipedia for some advice, they have an image vandal adding images of shit etc and are wondering if an edit filter stopping newbies adding images in their first 100 edits is the best way to handle this. I don't think they have enable the image filter yet. Ϣere SpielChequers 16:49, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
As part of the deployment of deferred changes, we'll need to update this guideline. I suggest to add the following to the Basics of usage section between warn and tag levels:
And to add a paragraph at the end of the Recommended uses section:
For edit filters targeting reviewable namespaces (currently only mainspace and project space), edit filters can be set to defer for review passively or actively. Per the RFC on the subject, edit filters should be set to defer passively before being set to defer actively. During the passive phase, the backlog should be watched carefully [1] and matches should be scrutinized for false positives. If the backlog grows excessively, it means deferring is not appropriate for the filter, or it should be modified to diminish catch rate. If there is a substantial number of false positives, then the filter should not be set to defer actively, or it should be modified to diminish false positives. If both the backlog and false positives are kept in check, then the filter may be set to defer actively.
Cenarium ( talk) 00:53, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Roll-back is a standard method of dealing with copyright violations. Until today I've been able to do that using the [restore this version] option provided by Twinkle. Now, when trying to roll back a biography to the last clean version, I'm blocked by this edit filter, which gives the message:
The following warning was returned by the edit filter:
Edit disallowed: {{persondata}} has been deprecated, it should not be used anywhere. Machine-readable information should be added to Wikidata instead.
If you wish to proceed with the rollback, please reload this page (F5 or Ctrl+R) and carry it out again. This warning wil [sic] not appear a second time
But if I reload the page and try to make the edit as instructed, I just get this:
The edit was disallowed by the edit filter rule "Disallow adding {{persondata}}".
Any advice on how to actually do the roll-back? I know of course that I can do it manually – find the revision number and editor of the last clean version for the edit summary, edit that version, remove the damned persondata, and save. But copyright clean-up is already time-consuming, we really don't need anything that makes it more so. Can I, for example, request exemption from the filter (I'm a copyright clerk)? Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 13:50, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
An IP-hopping spammer has been adding "Contact 09035865525" to many Nigerian university articles, e.g. [14], [15]. User:Materialscientist tells me "This is an LTA case, and some socks are here. All edits come from the 197.210.0.0/16 range, which is busy, but we might consider blocking it. The added phone numbers vary." Looking at the sock contributions, they do indeed vary. I can think of a few string + number regexes to filter on, but don't know anything about how the edit filter works on WP. Any thoughts on how best to filter these? Thanks, Wikishovel ( talk) 06:26, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Hey guys, I'm trying to figure out why Special:AbuseFilter/examine/log/17828520 is not a positive match to Special:AbuseFilter/839. This edit was hit by 839 earlier today, but now when I run the examine utility, or the batch test, it doesn't generate a hit. I can't seem to make it hit no matter how I edit the filter in the examine function. Someguy1221 ( talk) 23:09, 17 February 2017 (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.
Should edit filters be used to prevent citing sources deemed unreliable, or warn editors trying to do so, or log such actions? Tigraan Click here to contact me 13:45, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
The question is whether when a source is deemed unreliable by community consensus, an edit filter can be set to ward off attempts to cite it. The intended use is mostly against online sources because URL regular expression matching is easy, but it could be used to other sources as well if technically feasible.
By default, a "support" vote means that any filter setting can be used (subject to Wikipedia:Edit_filter#Recommended_uses); consensus for the use of a filter could decide to set a "log", "tag", "warn" or "disallow" level. If you think only specific filtering levels should be allowed or encouraged, please specify it.
A few clarifications:
sources deemed unreliableon purpose. The default I envision would be that community consensus can establish an edit filter on a case-by-case basis, but sources previously deemed unreliable would not be eligible; consensus would have to be established specifically for the use of an edit filter. Another RfC could establish criteria to consider for an edit filter to be set (e.g., widespread use by new editors, extra-unreliability threshold, etc.).
This RfC on RS/N was closed recently, establishing the use of an edit filter set on "warn" against citing the Daily Mail. I commented here. Much of the discussion focussed on whether the DM is a reliable source and whether a blanket ban on an unreliable source is acceptable or needed; however, the technical implementation was almost not discussed, even though it was an important part of the proposal in my view.
Since that RfC may constitute a de facto precedent for a blanket ban on multiple other "mainpress" but unreliable sources, concerns about the technical implementation should be addressed separately. Ideally, this would have been done beforehand, but better late than never.
"The Daily Mail may have been more reliable historically, and it could make sense to cite it as a primary source if it is the subject of discussion.". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:50, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
<ref>
to articles, do you? --
QEDK (
愛)
04:21, 17 March 2017 (UTC)The decision at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Daily Mail RfC, ratified by five uninvolved administrators, clearly states "An edit filter should be put in place going forward to warn editors attempting to use the Daily Mail as a reference." This RfC cannot be used as a backdoor method of overturning that RfC by not having any edit filter. Tigraan made that clear when he posted this RfC, but some editors here are ignoring him -- Guy Macon ( talk) 18:08, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
The proposal has been modified after several people !voted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:41, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Suddenly, I am having doubts about this RfC. The correct order to handle the whole thing would have been (1) establish policy for the "list of bad sources", (2) establish policy for edit-filtering those sources, (3) establish the Daily Mail fail under this, and to stop at any point were consensus fails.
The previous RfC mixed up all three, and was debated about half on point (3), half on point (1) and epsilon-esquely on point (2). In opening this RfC, I hoped to clarify point (2); but I missed in doing so that point (1) was not settled by the previous RfC, in view of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS complaints.
Should the present RfC be put on hold, conditional on a first RfC on point (1) (which may or may not overturn the previous one)? I would boldly do so, but it would look like a textbook example of unilateral action when things are not going "your" way. Tigraan Click here to contact me 19:29, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
I advise withdrawing this RfC and posting a new one with a question such as "How should we implement the decision at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Daily Mail RfC?", asking the readers to make specific proposals, and seeing if any get significant support. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 12:54, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't know whether this is the right place to complain about this, but I have a problem with your edit filter thing: I'm German so I usually start on the german wikipedia. I often click on the "english" version on the left and then, probably 8 out of 10 times, I don't land on the english article but on /info/en/?search=Special:AbuseFilter It's pretty annoying, as I always have to go back and try again, sometimes I have to try several times before I can actually see the article. Can anyone tell me why this happens? Thanks :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.187.22.125 ( talk) 16:20, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Reposting from WP:AN — DoRD ( talk) 01:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello!
I’d like to invite you to participate in a discussion about how the Edit filter (also known as AbuseFilter) can potentially be used to combat harassment. The Anti-Harassment Tools team is looking into improving performance and adding functionality and we need your input to make our work successful.
Join the conversation at Wikipedia talk:Community health initiative on English Wikipedia#Exploring how the Edit filter can be used to combat harassment. I hope to see y’all there!
— TBolliger (WMF) ( talk) 23:18, 21 June 2017 (UTC) on behalf of the Anti-Harassment Tools team
Hello. You are invited to comment on this ANI reform RfC. This invitation has been posted here because one of the RfC proposals relates to edit filters. Please do not comment in this thread; post all comments on the RfC pages. Thanks, Biblio ( talk) 19:32, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi,
This is an invitation to Edit filter managers and patrollers who refer to edit filters from your wiki project to share and know about
effective public filters from various wikimedia wiki projects.
It is almost eight years since March 2009, that Edit filters are in use on various Wikimedia wiki projects. At meta we have started a platform page m:Edit filters benefiting to various local Wikiprojects to know good and effective (public) edit filters by sharing of relevant information with rest of wikimedia community. This will help editfilter managers, and there by concerned projects, to benefit from maximising potential of best possible (public) edit filters.
We are keen to have your participation in this collaborative and constructive endeavour and the discussions.
Mahitgar ( talk) 11:29, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Would it be a good idea to add an option to only view public filters so that it would be less confusing for people who want to view the edit filters but aren't edit filter managers or helpers? [ Username Needed 12:59, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Ok, I'll request this at phabricator. [ Username Needed 11:09, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
| Here is the request [ Username Needed 11:17, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
{{
Rfc|tech}}
Why has the $1
variable been excluded from the message? This variable displays the public title of the filter that has been tripped when the action is disallowed. I think that the variable should be added so that inexperienced but good-faith users who may not know how to check their filter hits log will know why their edit was blocked.
66.31.81.200 (
talk)
00:31, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
![]() | 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 editing may result in a
block from editing.
|
— JJMC89 ( T· C) 02:41, 7 January 2018 (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 recently reviewed (Out of interest sake) a whole bunch of edit filters and stumbled upon a more recent addition that prohibits the use of Repetitious Usernames (#887), which in the context of my review seemed quite pertinent and something worth further discussion. The Username Policy states that “Your username can be virtually any string of characters (subject to a few technical limitations). However, it should be a name which other users will be comfortable with and which does not interfere with the project.” And goes on further to state, in reference to dealing with inappropriate usernames, “Consider leaving well enough alone: If the name is not unambiguously problematic, it may be sensible to ignore it.”
Repetitious usernames may seem silly and unsightly to many, but the current Username Policy does not intend to make reference to subjective visual aesthetics when speaking about maintaining user comfort – And certainly the living truth of the matter is that no user with a repetitious username has been sanctioned, warned or formally asked to change it in the past. If existing users are made ‘uncomfortable’ by someone who wants to be known as “cycycycy”, then they need to grow up and edit some articles instead of getting their knickers in a twist over something as petty as that; “Hitler was right” is username that should make users uncomfortable, rightly so, and this is what the username policy mandates action against, not the former example. On a side note, it is equally possible that the Edit Filter is intended as some kind of ill-conceived anti-vandalism mechanism, but this would have even weaker policy justification, and thus probably not worth discussing until such a time that someone asserts that the filter is an anti-vandalism mechanism.
Now, the concern here is that an Edit Filter has been used to implement a questionable policy interpretation with little to no consensus behind the reasoning. If there was any consensus on this edit filter then it would have be among a small number of Wikipedia’s greatest edit filter contributors whose efforts I respect, but whom are not policy experts, and whom can barely determine when it’s appropriate to use the Private filter flag let alone make judgements calls about filters such as this. That is not consensus, even if it did occur, which is doubtful in this instance.
There’s just no smudging it; This filter enforces a standard upon new users for which there is no clear justification within the current policy framework. It lacks consensus, and therefore the Administrator who implemented this filter has acted ultra vires to the authority vested in them by the community. The Edit Filter functionality must not be used to surreptitiously supplant the role of consensus in terms of site policies and guidelines as has occurred here.
Happy to discuss further. If my understanding of this filter is incorrect then please correct and accept my apologies. If my understanding is correct, then the only acceptable remediation is that the filter be disabled until an amendment to the username policy can be made that prohibits the user of usernames with repetition in them. «l|Promethean|l» (talk) 03:41, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
PS: Amusingly the filter in question is currently Private, but there is little justification for this visibility setting. If the filter is enforcing a username standard in addition to the username policy, then users have a moral *right* to know how much repetition is acceptable… and certainly if a user did try to circumvent the filter they’d be able to do so in about two attempts at most, by removing or reducing the repetition – This filter doesn't appear to be designed to stop someone registering, but rather intended to ensure they pick a likeable username that blends in with everyone else. Hence, the current visibility setting is unjustified and constitutes yet another example of questionable edit filter user judgement when it comes to withholding information from the community; George Orwell would be proud.
I've now made the filter public. I think its recent history shows that it quite closely approximates the letter of the policy: "a name which other users will be comfortable with and which does not interfere with the project", given that it currently catches names such as, to quote from some of the last few days' hits:
and
none of which particularly inspire confidence, as in general such usernames are hard for others to remember or distinguish from other usernames, something which makes them very likely to be an impediment to other editors. (For example, is it Fvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv or Fvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv? Vicky vicky vicky vicky vicky or Vicky vicky vicky vicky?) I'd also draw attention to its very low hit rate: such repetitious usernames are a tiny, tiny fraction of overall username registrations (typically about 10 per day), and is unlikely to more than very mildly inconvenience the vast majority of new users, while preventing quite a lot of problematic usernames (and associated user behavior), as well as one long-established and very persistent LTA. Any new users who are inconvenienced by the filter need only choose another username, and they can still register. -- The Anome ( talk) 16:39, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
-- The Anome ( talk) 16:33, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
From editing? This filter does not fire during editing at all, only during account creation. — xaosflux Talk 11:36, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
lcase(accountname) rlike "(...).*\1.*\1.*\1"
, but I feel like there's a whole lot of unnecessary hyperbole in this discussion. This isn't even close to a hill worth metaphorically dying on.
Writ Keeper
⚇
♔
13:45, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
It just occurred to me: For usability reasons, we might want to also customise the error message displayed to users so as to inform them that their registration was denied because the user name was detected as repetitious / inappropriate. Right now the generic message is used, which makes it sound like the mere act of registering is disruptive and blocked, with no explanation as to how they can achieve compliance with recent interpretations of the username policy. «l|Promethean|l» (talk) 14:13, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
@ Writ Keeper: Erm ... what have we agreed upon in the closed thread immediately above? : Noyster (talk), 20:01, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
couldn't agree more withthat and with my opinion that there was too much hyperbole in the conversation. So it sounded from what they wrote like the concern that they had opened the thread for was addressed, and it sounded like a good time to close it. Writ Keeper ⚇ ♔ 21:01, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Edit_filter_noticeboard#Revisit_guideline_to_post_about_new_disallowing_filters regarding a discussion for possibly changing notification requirements for disallow filters. — xaosflux Talk 20:59, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Recently, we've had several false positives where new users attempting to uncensor words in articles have had their edits disallowed. I'm relatively new to this scene, but I assume these types of false positives are a staple. I was wondering if it is possible to modify the filter so that it permits edits adding bad words if the only changes were to words that contained asterisks (the standard censoring character), or is that too complex for the filter language to handle? — Compassionate727 ( T· C) 03:28, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
What are the "security reasons" why non-privileged users can't use Special:AbuseFilter/test? From what I understand that's just a place to create new filters and try them against past edits, so nothing private is revealed. Is it some kind of DOS concern? I have some vague ideas for dealing with a particularly persistent IP-hopper, but I'd need to experiment quite a bit before I can propose anything concrete. Suffusion of Yellow ( talk) 17:35, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
I was warned that I was citing a predatory open access journal when I made this edit [17] not sure why. Tornado chaser ( talk) 03:56, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
I wasn't able to figure this out from a quick skim of the documentation: is it possible for an EF to use the output of a Lua script in a page, particularly in the edit notice? I.e. the edit notice has a template that invokes a lua function that can examine the edit more carefully than the usual regexps, and maybe call similar backend functions to the ones EF's use. Then it would generate a result (token in the edit buffer or whatever) that the EF could see and act on.
I'm asking because something like this could possibly help combat the current DOS attack against the reference desks. They are currently semi-protected til mid-November, which is painful since they do get frequent good contributions from unregistered users. Thanks. 173.228.123.166 ( talk) 00:43, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Xaosflux: Not that I can do it here, but how could I set up a username filter? I have a problem with someone creating accounts with near-identical usernames on another wiki.-- Laun chba ller 23:00, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
action == 'createaccount'
, accountname rlike (something)
, and set it to disallow. —
xaosflux
Talk
00:19, 4 January 2019 (UTC)Would that allow usernames with changing numbers though, e.g. if I was getting abuse from consecutive users called Vote4pedro and Vote5pedro would it stop the creation of a user account called Vote6pedro?-- Laun chba ller 12:50, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
A number of IPs making edits like this [18] (admins only, rev-deleted). Given the content of the edit and the edit-summary, I was sure we had a filter that caught some of the words in it. Black Kite (talk) 02:36, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Stop Predatory Journals maintains a list of hijacked journals. We could get domains from those and implement edit filters to make sure no one is citing the hijacked versions. Going to ping JzG ( talk · contribs) on this, but others will the technical ability could do this. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 00:07, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
When I run WP:REFILL on [19], I get the error:
Warning: An automated filter has identified this edit as containing references to one of the following self-publishing companies: AuthorHouse, Trafford Publishing, iUniverse, Lulu.com or Xlibris. Please be aware that self-published sources may be vanity publishing and rarely meet Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources.
The problem is, I have no idea which particular reference it's complaining about. There's 19 references, and 5 possible companies mentioned. None of the company names appear in the text. So, I have no idea what it's complaining about. Is there some way to get the filter to tell me exactly which reference failed? -- RoySmith (talk) 17:56, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:Username policy#Utility of reports by DatBot. Any input is welcome. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:07, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Edit filter/False positives/Blocks is at MfD. The page appears to have little use and so might be deleted, but I see that it was intended for explanations of edit filter problems since it is linked at MediaWiki:Abusefilter-blocked and MediaWiki:Abusefilter-degrouped so I thought it should be mentioned here. Perhaps the interface pages should link to Wikipedia:Edit filter/False positives? Johnuniq ( talk) 02:22, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
What are they? TheEditster ( talk) 03:11, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm interested in helping out with the edit filters since I rely heavily on them for patrolling. Eventually I'd be interested in gaining helper access, since my big area of interest is in catching promo/spam and a lot of those filters are private, but I recognize I should probably show that I'm useful and trustworthy before asking for that kind of access. I speak regex fairly well. Are there any things I could do to help around here to get started? Thank you in advance! creffett ( talk) 01:35, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
I've seen a couple cases where someone pasted base64-encoded image data into a page (so, for example, it contained "" which appears to be a standard JPEG header - see [20] as an example). Is that something worth creating a filter for? creffett ( talk) 02:00, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
For example, I had a preview message in Agile software development, triggered several filters after cleaning several citations. I thought I'd come back to it, but there's no apparement way of retrieving the EF warnings after saving. Is there a way of knowing what EFs are triggered, and by what strings of text? Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 17:27, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
891 in this case was the one that triggered). Galobtter ( pingó mió) 17:35, 8 June 2019 (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 filter folks, your feedback and constructive criticism would be welcome ( here) for my first filter.
Due to persistent disruption involving changes of pronouns contrary to consensus at Leslie Feinberg, and half a dozen fruitless conversations at the Talk page (most recent/current discussion: here) about how to prevent it, I finally created an edit filter to warn against pronoun changes. Your feedback would be welcome at Talk:Leslie Feinberg#Edit filter notice. Further details about the whys and wherefores at the Filter talk page. Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 22:21, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
What RegEx syntax do Wikipedia abuse filters use? Thank you - MrJaroslavik ( talk) 18:04, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi EF Team,
I note a couple of issues;
1. Multiple warnings for a single edit, in the worst case seen, 2 initial warning and a final warning for one edit.
2. Mistype/imported/other invalid IP address geting a warning and in fact the warning created the page.
Obviously issue 2 is an issue, however the effect is negligible other than an extra unneeded page that will never get used again, whereas issue 1 could be viewed as urgent, as this throws multiple warnings and a bluntish final warning to a potentially helpful and contributing editor that may dishearten them and reduce their future contributions. I can probably find the pages concerned if needed to demonstrate and provide an example, however, unfortunately I clean cookies/history etc quite often and would need to hunt a bit. 121.99.108.78 ( talk) 07:17, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Ref to 2 above User talk:2.26.93.179 created by USER:CLCStudent via TW via edit filter and IP add has never been used to edit at all, ref to 1 above going to be much harder to find but working on it. 121.99.108.78 ( talk) 00:46, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Bump Suffusion of Yellow, I am all done, I think, happy to help or add if needed though 121.99.108.78 ( talk) 08:57, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Mistype/imported/other invalid IP address. There IP editor attempted this, and CLCStudent warned them for it. Can you clarify? Suffusion of Yellow ( talk) 20:19, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
I've seen a number of edits like this, in which an editor (usually IP) adds a ref at the beginning of the article (before or after hatnotes and infoboxes). I don't know if this merits an edit filter; I've seen it about 4-5 times in the past year.
Also, do we catch links inserted as the first entry in an external links section? I see that one more frequently, and such edits are rarely useful. A quick perusal of the active edit filters suggests we don't, but I may have missed it. Mind matrix 01:42, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi everyone! I'm creating this discussion in order to provide everyone with some information regarding edit filter #51. As a highly-watched filter that many users look to for LTA pattern hits and early detection and intervention, I felt it was important to make sure that the changes I just made are announced, communicated, and made available to the community so that users who rely on this filter can adjust their links, scripts, log search filters, etc accordingly.
As of about 15 minutes ago, edit filter #51 is now split into two filters - edit filter #51 (the same filter ID), and edit filter #53. Moving forward, edit filter 51 will now handle the LTA new username pattern hits, and edit filter #53 will handle the LTA content edit and edit summary pattern hits. This split was necessary due to the total size of its regex code. Since I published its first revision years ago, I've worked to add, improve, fix, tighten, and resolve holes with it in order to make it an accurate and reliable filter log for the community to use. Unfortunately, these efforts have resulted in the regex code becoming massive in character count and size. This morning, I exceeded the maximum character size allowed in a single edit filter's regex code when I attempted to save a new revision of the code. This results in the bottom-most characters being chopped off of the end of the regex code, resulting in a malformed mess being saved. Splitting this edit filter into two separate edit filters was the best way to resolve this issue moving forward.
In a nutshell, you'll just need to watch both edit filters 51 and 53 moving forward if you wish to be provided with the same logs that you're used to seeing. If anyone has any questions, please let me know and I'll be happy to answer them. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 20:27, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
A user vandalized the Iowa page, which the filters didn't stop, but when I tried to undo it, the filters did stop me. 2001:470:8CEE:0:286E:503B:731A:D2 ( talk) 00:57, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
WP:Edit filter/Documentation seems largely redundant to https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:AbuseFilter/Rules_format, and it's incomplete (and I would guess out of date as well). Shouldn't the former mostly just point to the latter? E Eng 00:37, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Edit filter has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the article intro please change the following:
X: "warn the editor, revoke their autoconfirmed status, and/or disallow the edit entirely." to
Y: "warn the editor, revoke their autoconfirmed status, and disallow the edit entirely."
in keeping with
MOS:ANDOR (pick one or the other, or say "not both" if that possibility is important). --
109.76.200.104 (
talk)
22:28, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
After seeing some Wikipedia clones being inserted into articles as sources, it seems like this might be a good place to use the edit filter. After all, they're unlikely to be useful to readers, and often not too easy-to-spot for someone quickly trying to add sources (especially for niche topics). At least, warning would probably be a good idea. Elliot321 ( talk | contribs) 22:35, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
At Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard#Attempt to add Cheng Lei's official CGTN profile (archived on the Wayback Machine) to Cheng Lei (journalist) I inquired about adding a profile from CGTN of Cheng Lei to the respective article. I would like to have it in her article but the edit filter blocks it. Is there a way it can get an exception? WhisperToMe ( talk) 19:48, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Its showing again and again. Avijain911211 ( talk) 10:14, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
See
MediaWiki talk:Abusefilter-disallowed#Question. Why is the $1
variable excluded from the message? It makes no sense and can lead to various problems, like, for example, a user performing a constructive edit but cannot see the $1
. This makes it harder for the user to know what filter was tripped and can make the user extremely confused. I have a
version that I am working on to incorporate the $1
.
54nd60x (
talk)
09:00, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
An edit was made on Newcastle United F.C. correcting a red link to one that exists; I'm not sure how it managed to trigger an edit filter in this case. Iggy ( Swan) ( Contribs) 19:16, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
735 -- changing the owner in a sports infobox. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 19:32, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) § Adding a new edit filter trigger action: pop-up box. {{u|
Sdkb}}
talk
23:08, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Edit filter has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
=======ACADEMIC Marcelius Martirosianas dualiseanna Nobel 2017=2o22 30 juni HCM Bon AcademiC Garbes Doctor expert Nobelio Diplom instudy China 2o22 11 Auguste Humboldt universitycaf ACADEMIC 212.122.71.230 ( talk) 11:27, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
In the last month, filter 890 disallowed creation of several accounts with names that do not look random: Rchrchrls, Blkfrncsno14, Blkfrncsno1431, Atlslscsrv-app, Httpswtfkev, Sssbbbccc, Shbhmsngh23, Thrtlvlmdnght, Bbbqqqwww, JfrnXndrsn, Aceyxngcxspxr, Fapklsllsdn2120, Fapklsllsdn21, JLMJLMJLM14159, and Chrstnjmt. Even if there had been no false positives it is set to disallow account creations, some of which would have been in good faith - not everyone who wants a random name is a vandal, and creation of a random username is not vandalism (unlike, for example, creation of an offensive username). Would it be better set to warn? Peter James ( talk) 23:26, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
There are also false positives with filter 887, and many are more predictable - typically a series of four letters three or four times (sometimes with a number), such as ToriToriTori2 - which is not random or too long. The filter has been modified to disallow these, but there is no basis in username policy for it; there seems to be consensus that a username with the same letter 8 times in succession is acceptable. This could also be set to warn. Most of the disruptive names caught by these filters are not disruptive because of their repetition or randomness, but because they also contain a non-random part with offensive words, or are too long. Peter James ( talk) 23:26, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
In case anyone missed the recent Tech News:
str_replace_regexp()
function can be used in
abuse filters to replace parts of text using a
regular expression.
[21]– Certes ( talk) 10:34, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Is it intentional that edits which are disallowed are still visible to anybody by searching the filter logs, even when not logged in (i.e. in an incognito window)? I've got an example, but it didn't seem wise to post the URL here, so email me if you're interested. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:41, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
abusefilter-log-detail
permission for public filters. It should probably not be a permission that everyone, including anonymous users, has considering what could be in some of the edits.
PhantomTech[
talk
16:14, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
abusefilter-view-private
or abusefilter-modify
abusefilter-log-private
, abusefilter-view-private
, or abusefilter-modify
abusefilter-privatedetails
and abusefilter-log-detail
abusefilter-privatedetails
but I am able to see the details of hits on private filters. All of those permission have a counterpart for filters without "Hide details of this filter from public view" checked, which is granted to everyone.
PhantomTech[
talk
16:51, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
abusefilter-privatedetails
is basically a checkuser permission for viewing IP addresses from filter hits, and there's a log at
Special:Log/abusefilterprivatedetails. Only checkusers have it. It's kind of separate from other filter and checkuser stuff - you have to know where to look, and deliberately do so, in order to use it. --
zzuuzz
(talk)
18:17, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
abusefilter-view-private
or abusefilter-modify
) and (abusefilter-log-private
, abusefilter-view-private
, or abusefilter-modify
)
PhantomTech[
talk
18:30, 6 August 2022 (UTC)References