Wikipedia:Edit filter noticeboard

(Redirected from Wikipedia:Edit Filter Noticeboard)
Latest comment: 6 hours ago by EggRoll97 in topic Edit filter helper for A09
    Welcome to the edit filter noticeboard
    Filter 174 — Pattern modified
    Last changed at 04:36, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

    Filter 707 — Actions: disallow

    Last changed at 17:53, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

    Filter 1306 — Flags: disabled

    Last changed at 07:43, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

    This is the edit filter noticeboard, for coordination and discussion of edit filter use and management.

    If you wish to request an edit filter, please post at Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested. If you would like to report a false positive, please post at Wikipedia:Edit filter/False positives.

    Private filters should not be discussed in detail here; please email an edit filter manager if you have specific concerns or questions about the content of hidden filters.



    1297: is "fake[ ]news" a potential mixed-use word?

    edit

    I think I mostly understand what the filter's useful for—but I'm not sure whether this would be useful, borderline, or not useful. Thanks for the patience in advance.   Remsense ‥  03:41, 23 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

    This is far too common in actual constructive revisions to put into the filter. There are so many possible uses for it that the filter would probably be tripping far too often to be effective. EggRoll97 (talk) 23:53, 23 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Naturally. I guess I'm just unduly interested in the filter system for some reason—is there an acquired rule of thumb for how many false positives is too many? I would imagine it's extremely low, and quantifying it strictly would be asinine, but naturally thinking we stopped 5 constructive contributions would sting, even if we prevented thousands of routine vandals. Remsense ‥  00:53, 24 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    It's not so much the amount of false positives here, but the common usage. It's used in news reports, legitimate article content, and so much more. For example, see the full fifteen mentions of fake news on Presidency of Donald Trump, plus Fake news and similar articles. At the same time, you do have a valid point, it's a fairly mixed-use word, though probably for the best if we don't add that without strong evidence that it's being misused. I don't think I've seen much that gets past RecentChanges, personally. EggRoll97 (talk) 02:30, 24 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Short form versions of various EFFP parameters?

    edit

    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've noticed that {{EFFP|pagenameadded}}, {{EFFP|pagenamefixed}}, and {{EFFP|reportfixed}} have no short versions. May I suggest that we add short versions of these parameters of {{EFFP}} just so that they are easier to type out? For example, we could use "EFFP|pna" for pagenameadded, "EFFP|pnf" for pagenamefixed and "EFFP|rf" for reportfixed. Let me know what you all think. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 21:46, 25 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

    For what it's worth, it doesn't seem like any of these would affect MajavahBot even with the note saying that the bot uses them - seems pretty easy to implement too. If no one else comments here I'd recommend just being bold and adding them (can even test in the /sandbox). – 2804:F1...E1:EACF (talk) 03:38, 29 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    The discussion above 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.

    Filter 174

    edit

    Why is filter 174 only set to warn & tag? And why does it only apply to non-autoconfirmed users? I see a lot of removals by autoconfirmed users that have to be repeatedly reverted. I don't see any disadvantage to disallowing removal by all non-extended-confirmed users. Anyone with less than 500 edits generally isn't experienced enough to be closing XfD discussions. C F A 💬 18:32, 26 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

    I imagine benefit of the doubt, and reversion of vandalism? Best that it apply to as few people as possible, unless you're seeing specific examples of autoconfirmed users needing to be caught by this. EggRoll97 (talk) 06:03, 29 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Might be worth to run a test filter for autonfirmed users for a while to see if it should be added to the filter. Nobody (talk) 06:22, 29 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I think without actual disruption occurring, best not to. EggRoll97 (talk) 15:47, 29 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Yeah, I see autoconfirmed users removing AfD tags from their own articles all the time in my work at NPP. In fact, it's probably more common than non-autoconfirmed editors doing so because article creations by non-autoconfirmed editors have to go through AfC (and thus are much less likely to be nominated for deletion). In the rare case that someone maliciously adds an AfD tag (without starting a discussion), it will just be removed by an extended-confirmed editor. These rare cases are tracked at WP:NPPEASY and fixed within a few hours. If an editor maliciously starts a deletion discussion, it will be speedily kept by an AFD closer (who are always extended-confirmed). The vast, vast majority of AFD tag removals by non-extended-confirmed editors are disruptive. Even if the filter isn't set to disallow, it should at least log removals by autoconfirmed editors so people can track them. C F A 💬 02:27, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    This filter will now catch autoconfirmed users as well. Extended-confirmed editors are exempt now. I will so far decline to switch it to disallow unless there is consensus to do so, though. EggRoll97 (talk) 04:36, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Thanks. C F A 💬 21:15, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    @EggRoll97: Should the name be changed?
    To "Non-extendedconfirmed user removing XfD template", perhaps? – 2804:F14:80E2:E301:70E6:DA2D:5A4C:A92D (talk) 22:41, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    New user generally seems to still apply to the intended use-case. Getting autoconfirmed is extraordinarily easy, after all. EggRoll97 (talk) 01:31, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Set filter 707 to disallow? (round 2)

    edit

    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.


    This is a continued discussion from Wikipedia:Edit filter noticeboard/Archive 13#Set filter 707 to disallow?.

    We've made the message for the filter, and based on the hits, it's working as it should be (logging all drive-by vandals disrupting EFFPR). Does anyone object if we actually set the filter to disallow? Codename Noreste 🤔 Talk 01:41, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

    No objections from me, filter doesn't seem to have any FPs, I think it can be safely set to disallow. Lordseriouspig 09:56, 30 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Support if bot and sysop also get put in the user groups. Nobody (talk) 11:15, 30 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I believe confirmed user rights are also implied in the administrator and bot user groups, FYI. Codename Noreste 🤔 Talk 14:18, 30 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Just tested it, looks like you're right. TY Nobody (talk) 14:34, 30 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    SupportPharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 14:35, 30 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    The discussion above 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.

    Edit filter helper

    edit

    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.


    There are 4 days, 5 hours, 25 minutes and 5 seconds until Earliest closure. (refresh)

    NYC Guru (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) (assign permissions)(acc · ap · ev · fm · mms · npr · pm · pc · rb · te)

    I'm requesting permission which will allow me explain false positives tripped by private edit filters at Wikipedia:Edit filter/False positives. NYC Guru (talk) 08:55, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

    @NYC Guru Gonna be frank with you, that's not happening. You've had no involvement with edit filters since you started editing, which fails WP:EFHCRITERIA. Nobody (talk) 09:24, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    You might want to.. actually get yourself involved? 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 09:40, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    if it means being an admin on another project then it's certainly not happening but yes i would like to "get involved". NYC Guru (talk) 10:32, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I'm not seeing your username on the last 500 edits to WP:EFFPR.. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 10:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Oppose per my comments above since this is turning into an actual discussion somehow 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 01:33, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Well, assuming I did have edits I an not an admin on any wikiproject so this would fail anyway, but I'll try to get involved as I'd like to volunteer beyone stub sorting and WP:NPP. Didn't think this was an-RFA style discussion, though but I'll let it run it's course. NYC Guru (talk) 01:48, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    The standard applied to EFH candidates has often exceeded RfA. EFH needs serious trust as it contains private information. It is, in my opinion, impossible to get EFH without any involvement in the area first. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 02:02, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    The standard applied to EFH candidates has often exceeded RfA. I'm not sure about that. RFA is notoriously stressful and toxic. And RFA has hundreds more participants. But I definitely agree that EFH isn't just handed out to anyone. For someone that doesn't have a valid need-to-know such as an SPI clerk, it requires a blend of experience at WP:EFFPR and community trust. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:11, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    @Novem Linguae:To be fair I'll wait a day given I didn't expect all these comments. Too bad I didn't get the courtesy when I WP:BOLDly tried an RFA back in January 2023. NYC Guru (talk) 03:45, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Well, this point has been said here before and it might not be a fair comparison. But I think there have been people have expressed here that they might oppose an EFH candidate one that they do not necessarily oppose/could support in an RfA. Even though having sysop gives you what an EFH would have anyways. (I think a layer to this is that some people will only support EFH if they will support EFM as well) 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 11:21, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I don't see a demonstrated need for this, and there's also a lack of activity on any related noticeboards. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 15:24, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Unfortunately, I strongly agree with what everyone says below; the edit filter helper and manager permissions both require a high level of trust (comparable to that of an administrator). In addition, some private filters' logs often contain personal information such as emails and phone numbers. Codename Noreste 🤔 Talk 16:44, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Note: I've added the countdown and links, since this technically does count as a valid self-nomination and the user does meet the technical requirements. EggRoll97 (talk) 18:25, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Oppose Clearly not ready, and I think this probably is a WP:NOTNOW situation, but I don't see any harm in letting it run if the user really wants it to run. EggRoll97 (talk) 18:25, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Oppose No edits to WP:EFFPR? Ternera (talk) 21:12, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Oppose: Per everyone else. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 22:59, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Oppose for now. If you don't mind, I'd suggest withdrawing to save the community some time. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:10, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Comment @NYC Guru: you can't just change the earliest closure date. The discussion is required to run for 7 days at minimum if you need it to run its course. A withdrawal would be best, I guess I could also see SNOW if someone else decides to. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 11:21, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    The discussion above 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.

    Edit filter helper for A09

    edit
    There are 6 days, 17 hours, 2 minutes and 5 seconds until the earliest closure. (refresh)

    A09 (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) (assign permissions)(acc · ap · ev · fm · mms · npr · pm · pc · rb · te)

    Hello! I'd like to request edit filter helper rights. I confirm I have read the appropriate policy. Even tough I am not directly involved with abuse filters on enwiki, I believe I have a handful of use-cases. Firstly, I am an admin and a checkuser on slwiki (see SUL), and I maintain many abuse filters there (see sl:Posebno:AbuseFilter). EFH rights would be a chance for me to see certain enwiki approaches to LTAs and to possibly implement these on a crosswiki level, especially since I had to ask for enwiki filters examples/improvments many times in the past years. Furthermore, I believe I could help in improving existing LTA filters as I deal with a handful of them on a daily basis. I am happy to receive any feedback, and also fully prepared to withdraw the request if community wouldn't grant this rights. A09|(talk) 18:33, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply