Wikipedia:Edit filter noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Welcome to the edit filter noticeboard
Filter 770 — Flags: disabled
Last changed at 23:35, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Filter 624 — Flags: disabled

Last changed at 21:13, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Filter 825 — Flags: disabled

Last changed at 21:27, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Filter 859 — Flags: disabled

Last changed at 21:37, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Filter 862 — Flags: disabled

Last changed at 21:27, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Filter 866 — Flags: disabled

Last changed at 21:27, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Filter 910 — Actions: disallow

Last changed at 13:10, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Filter 260 — Pattern modified

Last changed at 22:41, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Filter 913 — Flags: disabled

Last changed at 12:05, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Filter 914 (new) — Actions: disallow; Flags: enabled,private; Pattern modified

Last changed at 21:07, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Filter 648 — Flags: enabled

Last changed at 10:35, 21 April 2018 (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 WP:Edit filter/Requested. If you would like to report a false positive, please post at WP:Edit filter/False positives.

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

There are currently 181 enabled filters and 12 stale filters with no hits in the past 30 days (Purge). See also the edit filter graphs

Request for EFH (-revi)

No action taken, as -revi is considering if they want to keep the editing bit (see last comment). If you want it removed, or reduced to EFH, just ask. I don't think discussion was necessary in the first place. MusikAnimal talk 15:24, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Endorse a speedy change if -revi wants to do this in the future, based on the conversation below, this activity should still be best performed by enwiki admins. — xaosflux Talk 15:44, 13 March 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 got abusefilter for filter #648 (and this was the only reason I was granted the right), but that’s now deleted. Therefore I no longer need permission to edit filters, but I would like to retain the right to view the private filters so I can learn from them and apply it in kowiki or elsewhere I can edit filters. (To clarify: please remove abusefilter regardless of whether I should get the EFH - and this is also a request for EFH.)

WP:EFH criteria
  • Demonstrated need for access: (see above)
  • No recent block/ban: My block log is clean and I haven’t been banned for my wiki-tenure.
  • Understanding of account security: I had 2FA since 2FA day 1, and my password is managed by secure password manager.
  • Understanding of Regex: I can write basic filters but N/A anyway since I just want to see.
  • Sufficient English ability: This is a proof by itself.
  • Additional requirement: Current admin on other WMF wikis.

— regards, Revi 14:13, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Discuss (-revi)

  • Obvious support, self-requested reduction in access, is a steward as well - standard 3 day clock set for comments. — xaosflux Talk 16:36, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - technical request to swap EFM for EFH - TNT 16:41, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - no concerns. CrowCaw 17:31, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - I think you're perfectly fine to keep your editing rights, if you want them? Also I thought as a steward you already have read/write rights, globally? MusikAnimal talk 18:57, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
    meta:Special:GlobalGroupPermissions/steward MusikAnimal talk 18:59, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
    Yup, I know I can read super secret private filters for now, but I want to retain read ability even after my Steward-y time is over. And... I really didn’t use AF editing features outside of #648, and I’d prefer to let it go. — regards, Revi 19:07, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Is this process really necessary? Waiting a few days then closing a request for an editor who wants to downgrade. I support Revi's request, but this type of case should be an automatic given if it's a downgrade. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 23:51, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

  • I would speedily support this. ~ Amory (utc) 01:56, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose removing EFM – but support adding EFH when EFM is removed, since we unfortunately can't force people to keep rights. Κσυπ Cyp   07:49, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
    Hi Cyp, any reason opposing removing EFM? Emoji u1f600.svg — regards, Revi 09:12, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
    Getting permissions such as EFM indicate someone is trusted not to misuse them. And asking to give up the permission seems like telling people not to trust them anymore. Whomever that actually shouldn't have permissions wouldn't usually be asking to have them removed, anyway. Opposing here (or anywhere) is probably futile, though. Κσυπ Cyp   06:07, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
    You can't contest a self-removal request but I'm sure you meant it as a point, so that's okay. --QEDK ( 🌸 ) 16:12, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
    I meant to do this as a sort of reviewing permission I have on wikis and thinking "do I really need it?" like activity. — regards, Revi 14:23, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I was considering if I just want to keep it for future use - can you defer the closure for around 6 hrs? — regards, Revi 14:23, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

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.

Meta follow up

I've added a proposal to add a speedy capability for self-requests to Wikipedia talk:Edit filter helper, baring any actual objections the conversation above suggests this is uncontroversial. — xaosflux Talk 15:50, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Condition Limit Exceeded

A new tag: can show edits that overflow our condition limits. — xaosflux Talk 19:53, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Humorously, the notice that contains the announcement of the abusefilter-condition-limit tag is itself triggering the tag. —RP88 (talk) 20:16, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Heh, indeed! This is a nice feature. However if I understand this correctly, it might be a bit misleading. For instance, if you see page move was tagged as having met the condition limit, that doesn't necessarily mean the filters around page moving need to be improved. Instead it might have been one filter that isn't meant to check page moves at all, but is consuming more conditions that it needs to. Does that make sense?

Anyway, we've historically done quite good at staying within the condition limit. At the time of writing, I see that only one action (of the last 4,000+) has reached the limit. It'd be good to get that back down to zero :) Maybe it's time for a spring cleaning? Anything under User:MusikBot/StaleFilters/Report that we don't need anymore? MusikAnimal talk 21:24, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

@MusikAnimal: problem is that those "4000" seem represent a very small amount of continuous time. But yes, review and optimization is always good! — xaosflux Talk 23:58, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

af-modify or af-view private requested

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.

Hello, I generally follow a few uaa and aiv filters, some are private. Was wondering if it would be possible to grant the efm or efh flag for now. Any would do. Thanks for the consideration. Warmly, Lourdes 05:39, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

WP:BN is thattaway ~ Amory (utc) 14:28, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
True that. Lourdes 14:56, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

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.
...and founder status too? :D No :) Amory was referring to my going to BN, getting the admin bit and checking the afm flag. Lourdes 10:51, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
And the viewing of these is already included with +sysop. — xaosflux Talk 11:17, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Major changes possibly happening to AbuseFilter, feedback requested

With phab:T181024 there is talk to make AbuseFilter treat arrays like arrays, and not cast into strings. So for instance, right now 1 in [0, 11, 20] is true, yet 1 is not in the array. Making it act like a true array makes sense, and would allow you to do things like contains_any(article_namespace, 0, 11, 20) instead of the less desirable article_namespace in "^(0|11|20)$". However there are some things like added_lines where true array handling may be adverse (e.g. "foo" in added_lines would be false unless "foo" was on its own line). There are a number ways to address this issue: maybe introduce new variables for this (added_text), or we could just ensure added_lines is always casted to a string when using in, contains, etc. Basically, we need more input :)

If you have the time, please give phab:T181024 a read and share your thoughts. Comment on Phabricator if you can, but here is fine too :) Cheers MusikAnimal talk 15:44, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

@MusikAnimal: I personally quite like the way that [string arrays] are currently handled. I sympathise with the problem surrounding 1 in [0, 11, 20] being true, but I have only ever encountered this in rare cases like namespaces and article_ids, and it's easy to work around. Treating things like added_lines, user_groups, and added_links as newline-delimited strings allows for some extra flexibility and doesn't have the restrictions imposed by exact (array) matching. Being able to write "confirmed" in user_groups is a feature, not a bug, IMO. So for the sake of simplicity I'd prefer to keep the default casting as it is, and (if so inclined) introduce new array-casting functions. Perhaps the list syntax ([]) could be changed for this purpose. -- zzuuzz (talk) 10:29, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, all things considered changing this behaviour is probably not good. I think we should consider array-casting functions, as you say, like in_array and array_contains, etc. This will also mean we don't cause massive regressions, since the majority of filters do things like !("confirmed" in user_groups). Thanks for the feedback MusikAnimal talk 20:24, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Revision deletion in the edit filter log

Is it possible to use revision deletion to hide Special:AbuseLog entries? I have no particular case in mind. I just noticed there doesn't seem to be a way to do this. Sometimes the filter (e.g. filter 686) might tag an egregious BLP violation (or worse, oversightable information) which we may revdel using WP:RD2, but the edit is still publicly visible via the edit filter log, and it doesn't seem we can redact it there. Mz7 (talk) 08:38, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Oversighters have Hide entries in the abuse log (abusefilter-hide-log). Admins do not. — regards, Revi 08:51, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Ah gotcha. I wonder if it might be beneficial to grant some of that functionality to administrators in order to bring the feature in sync with regular log deletion elsewhere. Mz7 (talk) 20:59, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
I think it would be, need a feature request though - the EF logs are completely different then the rest of the logs. — xaosflux Talk 23:28, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Edit filter public/private?

Why most of the edit filters is private? Not sure why? 2A02:C7F:963F:BA00:D1AA:6B7B:FE31:F56 (talk) 21:09, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Most of the active filters are public. Private filters are private to reduce the incidence of users circumventing them. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:34, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
who can view private filters? 2A02:C7F:963F:BA00:5D66:A891:94CC:66A4 (talk) 21:26, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Admins and a small group of others. — xaosflux Talk 21:52, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from ""
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia :
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Wikipedia:Edit filter noticeboard"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA