Wikipedia:Edit filter noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Welcome to the edit filter noticeboard
Filter 1202 — Actions: none; Flags: enabled
Last changed at 20:43, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Filter 856 — Pattern modified

Last changed at 01:48, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Filter 3 — Pattern modified

Last changed at 23:03, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Filter 1014 — Pattern modified

Last changed at 21:24, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Filter 1214 (new) — Actions: none; Flags: enabled,private; Pattern modified

Last changed at 20:17, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Filter 1213 (new) — Actions: none; Flags: enabled,public; Pattern modified

Last changed at 22:37, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Filter 1212 (new) — Actions: none; Flags: enabled,public; Pattern modified

Last changed at 22:05, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Filter 1168 — Actions: disallow; Pattern modified

Last changed at 19:40, 12 August 2022 (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.


Click here to start a new discussion thread


Request for EFH permission for PhantomTech[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.


PhantomTech (t · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools • sigma· non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · rollbacks · logs (blocks • rights • moves) · rfar · spi) (assign permissions)(acc · ap · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)

This request is for EFH, I've previously requested EFM permission at Special:Permalink/654597783#Request_for_permission_for_PhantomTech and will notify those participants shortly after posting this request. At the time of the request there was no local user group with abusefilter-view-private and it was suggested that permission may have been more appropriate to grant at the time.

My focus on Wikipedia has been counter vandalism, including LTA. I've somewhat recently returned and have been getting back into the areas that have interested me before. I've previously watched for false positive reports that I could respond to and have started to resume doing that, along with providing information or suggestions in filter requests. My primary purpose for the permission would currently be to be able to respond to false positives on private filters. I'd also like to help with modifications to private edit filters and have done so in the past with public ones, but I'm not sure what the process for that would be for someone with EFH since they're private (-en-editfilters?). I expect to continue helping with requests but don't expect the permission to be very helpful in that area.

It's hard to self assess competency but I think I have a very good understanding of RegEx. I've used it extensively in the past, including for things related to Wikipedia. PHANTOMTECH (talk) 03:39, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Endorse: The concerns raised in your previous request mainly seem to revolve around editing filters — seeing as EFH only grants abusefilter-view-private, and given that you have been fairly active i.r.t. assisting with filters (49 edits to EF/FP, 31 edits to EF/R, with decent suggestions), I'm happy to support this request — TNT (talk • she/her) 04:10, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Timestamp to prevent possible archiving before close. PhantomTech[talk] 01:10, 22 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • An odd predicament here: low participation but no objection. Speak now (in the next 24 hours) or forever hold your peace, y'all! -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 02:02, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support seems fine, has been around long enough without causing trouble. I opposed for EFM, and still would right now, but not worried about EFH. — xaosflux Talk 13:37, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[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.

Suggestion[edit]

Should there (or is there any?) be a filter to tag edits/page creations by new users that are made in Template, Category, Wikipedia (except AfD and SPI) namespaces? --Minorax«¦talk¦» 11:12, 25 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Theoretically this should work:
!("confirmed" in user_groups) &
page_age == 0 & 
contains_any(page_namespace, 10, 14, 4) &
!(page_prefixedtitle in "^Wikipedia:(Articles for deletion\/.+|Categories for discussion\/Log\/\d{4} \w{3,9} \d{1,2}|Files for discussion\/\d{4} \w{3,9} \d{1,2}|Miscellany for deletion\/.+|Redirects for discussion\/Log\/\d{4} \w{3,9} \d{1,2}|Templates for discussion\/Log\/\d{4} \w{3,9} \d{1,2})$")
I don't have access to EFH, so I can't test it, but if an EFM could create a test filter for this, it would be much appreciated. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 03:29, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here's a regex101 test: [1] 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 03:36, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The middle 2 lines should be:
page_age == 0 & 
contains_any(page_namespace, 10, 14, 4) &
I'm not sure if there's a better way to do the title check. It can be done using substr but that won't be better than regex for accuracy and might not make a significantly beneficial performance difference, if any at all. PhantomTech[talk] 04:36, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I forgot to add SPI. It's in there now. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 04:40, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And thanks! 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 04:40, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Err, on second thought, SPI probably shouldn't be included; I'm thinking this should be a create-type filter rather than edit. There would be too many good-faith pages where IPs/non-AC'ed users could edit (the Teahouse comes to mind, but excluding that I think there would be much more still). 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 05:40, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Summarizing!
!("confirmed" in user_groups) &
page_age == 0 & 
contains_any(page_namespace, 4, 10, 12, 14, 710, 828) &
!(page_prefixedtitle in "^Wikipedia:(Articles for deletion\/.+|Categories for discussion\/Log\/\d{4} \w{3,9} \d{1,2}|Files for discussion\/\d{4} \w{3,9} \d{1,2}|Miscellany for deletion\/.+|Redirects for discussion\/Log\/\d{4} \w{3,9} \d{1,2}|Templates for discussion\/Log\/\d{4} \w{3,9} \d{1,2})|Template:Did you know nominations\/.+$")
The above code checks if non-autoconfirmed users create a new page in the Wikipedia, Template, Help, Category, TimedText or Module namespaces. It excludes XfD and DYK. This filter should likely be a tag filter. TheresNoTime, can I ask you for a favor? 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 22:25, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Testing at Special:AbuseFilter/1 (previous test promoted to filter) — TheresNoTime (talk • she/her) 22:31, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A few comments:
  • contains_any(page_namespace, 10) is not the proper way to check for namespaces; for example, it tests true for namespaces 100 and 101. Use equals_to_any(page_namespace, 10)
  • if you're checking for "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/" PLUS "whatever", you might as well check for "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/" alone; saves some processing time. Same for other strings, in most cases there's no need to be that specific unless you're gonna use the rest of the string for something.
  • "in" is not a regex operator, use rlike. When using ^ and $, what's in between needs to go inside a noncapturing group, "^(?: )$"
Documentation is here.
Ponor (talk) 00:29, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is right, here's the modified filter
!("confirmed" in user_groups) &
page_age == 0 & 
equals_to_any(page_namespace, 4, 10, 12, 14, 710, 828) &
!(page_prefixedtitle rlike "^(?:Wikipedia:(?:Articles for deletion\/|Categories for discussion\/Log\/\d{4} \w{3,9} \d{1,2}$|Files for discussion\/\d{4} \w{3,9} \d{1,2}$|Miscellany for deletion\/|Redirects for discussion\/Log\/\d{4} \w{3,9} \d{1,2}$|Templates for discussion\/Log\/\d{4} \w{3,9} \d{1,2}$)|Template:Did you know nominations\/)")
PhantomTech[talk] 04:33, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for being speedy, a step ahead of me. @TheresNoTime could you tweak the filter? Sorry, this was my suggestion. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 04:38, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(GIF) The two methods of testing the page_prefixedtitle
Changes made (more fool me for only clicking "check syntax" and not properly reading it, given it was log-only.. will be a bit more careful next time) — the debugging tools in AbuseFilter is really useful for testing out things like this Face-smile.svgTheresNoTime (talk • she/her) 10:23, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To further simplify: while it doesn't hurt, forward slashes do not need to be escaped (\/). Use "rescape" function in debug console to see that. Ponor (talk) 08:57, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While it isn't a special character in regex and doesn't need to be escaped for the filters here, it is the default delimiter at regex101 for PCRE so I think that's why it is escaped. PhantomTech[talk] 09:22, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Changes to the lead.[edit]

My thought is a tag that would be useful in detecting Wikipedia:Lead dos and don'ts violations. The difficult part is where the cut off should be so adding hatnotes or minor grammatical changes are not tagged. So basically just new prose. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 17:04, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Which aspects specifically would you like to look into detecting? Length? Parenthetical phrase count? Bolding? I don't know if this stuff is a good fit for an edit filter, but hammering out the details is the next step to discussing this, I think. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:09, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well my first thought was people who add new information to an article in the lead, but not in the body. So I guess we would look at the size of the addition. This is likely to include a lot of false positives, but might still be useful. Maybe a separate tag for bolding in the lead. Such tags might encourage editors to patrol the leads. This is very much a half-baked idea. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 21:49, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

misc article/draft/talk LTA[edit]

False positives area seems to be getting a bit backlogged, and at a spot check all of the past few tripped this one 1 2 3 4. Now maybe I'm the only FP (I doubt that), but an EFM really needs to look closely at any recent changes to that filter to see if they're causing it to disallow innocuous edits. I understand this will need to be discussed in private, just wanted to bring it to everyone's attention. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 15:32, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bumping this section because the problem still seems to be unresolved – there are lots of unresolved reports for hits to this filter that aren't in obvious bad faith, and apparently no edit filter managers have been around to take a look at them. (Because it's a private filter, the non-edit-filter-managers who patrol EFFP can't do anything about these reports – we can't even see what the report submitter was trying to change. We also can't see whether the filter was fixed or not, but even if it has been, the existing reports will need examining.) --ais523 20:59, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's not set to disallow so it shouldn't be causing any actual problems. PRAXIDICAE🌈 21:01, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, this is probably filter 1202 mentioned below? In that case, the filter itself is probably OK at the moment, but there's still a backlog at WP:EFFP of edits that got caught in it while it was broken and set to disallow. --ais523 21:03, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Special:AbuseFilter/1202[edit]

Above, and reports elsewhere - removed disallow disabled due to throttling — TheresNoTime (talk • she/her) 15:37, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ohnoitsjamie: FYI — TheresNoTime (talk • she/her) 15:37, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oops, thanks for shutting that off! I was trying to fix some false positives, I think I got some nesting wrong. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:43, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Re-enabled (log-only), with a consistent indentation style, because I couldn't follow the logic either. @Ohnoitsjamie:, unless it's an emergency, whenever I make a non-trivial change to a disallowing filter, I either do a quick spot-check at Special:AbuseFilter/test, or, for complex changes, set the filter to log-only for about ten minutes or so. I realize that it can be it bit tedious to do this every time, but that was over 1500 false positives. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:02, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for cleaning that up, I realize it was a bit incomprehensible; it covers a small handful of LTAs. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:08, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ohnoitsjamie: NP. Let me use this opportunity to shamelessly plug some of my own tools: