Wikipedia:Edit filter noticeboard

Welcome to the edit filter noticeboard
Filter 1085 — Actions: none
Last changed at 20:16, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Filter 869 — Pattern modified

Last changed at 07:39, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Filter 1014 — Pattern modified

Last changed at 23:08, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Filter 1110 (new) — Actions: disallow; Flags: enabled,private; Pattern modified

Last changed at 16:05, 19 January 2021 (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

Edit Filter Helper for EggRoll97Edit

There is no support for this request. — JJMC89(T·C) 04:06, 23 December 2020 (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.

Prior requests:
July 2018 - Declined
February 2019 - Declined
August 2020 - Withdrawn

Previous participants (no closing administrator pinged due to withdrawl in previous request): @Nihlus:

Hello all. So, I'd like to cut to the point. I'm requesting, for the 4th time, edit filter helper. I have a few reasons, so let me just explain them here, along with my analysis of the requirements to be granted the userright.

Demonstrated need for access (e.g. SPI clerk, involvement with edit filters)  Y

I would like to be able to view the private filters so I can respond to more of the EFFP reports. I would also like to gain more experience with the filters, so I can go further beyond just seeing an error, and being able to know what the problem is with the filter that is making the false positive produce a filter hit.

No recent blocks or relevant sanctions.  Y

I have never been blocked or sanctioned on the wiki.

At least basic understanding of account security.  Y

I have 2FA on my account, and certainly can say without any hesitation that I have more than just a basic knowledge of account security.

At least basic understanding of regular expressions if the intent is to assist with authoring filters.  Y

At the time, the intent of the request mainly centers on the ability to view private filters for EFFP troubleshooting for more in-depth requests. However, I do plan to explore the possibility of assisting in authoring filters, and potentially, if I feel ready, requesting the EFM right here. To clarify, my intent at the moment is not to assist in authoring filters, but may be in the future.

Sufficient ability with the English language to understand notes and explanations for edit filters.  Y

I am a native English speaker, and I certainly believe I meet this requirement, though I'm sure I've made a few typos over the years.

I realize that the previous 3 requests are possibly one of the big concerns that may be brought up. If it is found appropriate, I would like to offer that I be given a temporary grant of the userright, so that my contributions with the userright, may be evaluated after I am given the time to gain the sufficient experience that has been mentioned by Nihlus in my previous request.

Please let me know if you have any questions. I'd be happy to answer. Thanks. EggRoll97 (talk) 05:44, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

@DannyS712: As to the first point, I'd say the biggest change is probably that I would like to explore assisting in authoring filters, and that would be made easier with the userright, given it's access to the test interface. However, the most relevant change to me right now, is the current amount of private filter hits popping up on the false positive page. I've been frequenting the page, and I've responded to a number of reports, but I can't respond to the reports with private filters. With the userright, I would be able to evaluate the private filter requests at the same time, so that those who are posting false positive reports with regards to private filters are not subjected to a longer wait-time while other reports surrounding it are dealt with quickly. I'm sure there's probably a thought about no deadline existing, but that doesn't mean the private filter requests have to sit around while the public filter requests are resolved.
This isn't a knock on the current EFHs, by any means, I'm simply stating that if I'm going in and resolving the reports involving public filters, I believe I've gained enough experience at that to be given the ability to evaluate the private filter reports as well at the same time.
As to the second point, that thread is one of the main reasons I suggested a temporary grant. I assume it is technically feasible, as it is frequently done to evaluate competence for other roles (this isn't like other roles, but the technical ability to grant it temporarily still exists, I presume). If it is technically feasible, and there are any doubts regarding my competence with the userright, that is why I would like to be given a temporary grant, rather than a full grant, so that I may demonstrate competence with the userright before being hopefully given a regular grant of the userright. EggRoll97 (talk) 06:37, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Re technically feasible - yes, this is possible and turns out to have indeed been done before, at Wikipedia:Edit filter noticeboard/Archive 5#Edit filter helper for User:Leaderboard. As for the rest, responding below DannyS712 (talk) 06:58, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose per my previous comments. You've made 75 edits since the last request. At this point, I am now more concerned with your inability to take feedback and apply it prior to bringing this request back to us for now a fourth time. Therefore, I would rather support a temporary prohibition of requests at this page for you. Nihlus 18:38, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
The same point I made in the previous request still stands. Edit count should not equal overall experience. EggRoll97 (talk) 21:26, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is the user's fourth request. I would generally expect to see progress made towards addressing the issues raised in prior discussions, but that doesn't appear to be the case. To be clear, the fact that a prior request failed does not mean that a future request will (otherwise there would be no point in any future requests). However, the biggest issue is a lack of experience. Merely helping out with false positives reports is not, in and of itself, demonstrative of sufficient experience with filters. You said both above and in your third request that edit count is not the only measure of experience, but you have not provided any other way of demonstrating experience - I don't recall seeing any requested changes to filters? There is a fairly high bar for "Demonstrated need for access", and you do not appear to meet it - wanting to be able to help out more at the false positives page is not sufficient (it was one of the cited reasons at two other recent requests that both did not succeed, Wikipedia:Edit filter noticeboard/Archive 8#Edit Filter Helper request for moonythedwarf and Wikipedia:Edit filter noticeboard/Archive 8#Edit filter user rights). Neither is wanting "to explore assisting in authoring filters" - since EFH doesn't allow authoring filters, and you have no demonstrated history of proposing changes where the use of the testing interface would be handy. While yes, there isn't a very clear definition of demonstrated need, as Crow explained recently, its essentially a case of I know it when I see it, and in this case I just don't see it. --DannyS712 (talk) 07:20, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Comments Temporary rights make zero sense in the context of EFH (not for you specifically, but in general): If a malefactor intends to abuse this right, they only need an hour and the damage is done. I fully agree that edit count is meaningless as one can spend an hour investigating something and then make "only" 1-2 edits to resolve it, which then looks to a passer-by like 5 minutes work. Given this is the 4th request now, it comes across as really really wanting this permission. If it does fail this time and you spend "x amount of time" to where you would otherwise be granted, it will then be request #5 and that alone will turn off people. CrowCaw 17:00, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
    @Crow: given that practically every EFH request fails unless it's championed by an EFM (give or take a couple IARs) maybe GeneralNotability's idea from the last request should be reconsidered: Spitballing: maybe we could have a "sponsoring" approach instead? Instead of the usual !vote, a current EFH/EFM can put a candidate forward and say "I trust them and think they'd benefit from having the permission" and the candidate is presumed to be suitable unless someone brings up a significant concern. Again, just writing off the top of my head here. Basically edit Wikipedia:Edit_filter_helper#Process_for_requesting so that CUs can give this out as they do, or an EFM can give it out to someone they trust. If that's too far, perhaps keep it a discussion but make it a nomination-only process so that self-noms aren't permitted, and a request has to be submitted by an EFM?
    Because I feel like this EFH process is rather unfair. Editors in good faith, trying to help out, make a request they don't even know is DOA, and then they have to deal with a wall of opposes. This just seems discouraging, and a change to the process to reflect the reality (that an EFM has to support a request for it to have any chance of passing) would seemingly fix these issues and line up with, apparently, why EFH was created in the first place. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:26, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
    @Crow: A little further to your point here, while 75 edits is pointed out as a number, I frequently compile multiple replies to FP reports into one edit (in one instance, I believe I responded to around 6 or 7 in one edit). If all replies were made separately, the count itself would be quite higher indeed, rendering the number itself useless. On the number of requests, hindsight is 20/20, and looking back at my previous requests: the 1st request didn't have a snowball's chance in hell, neither did the 3rd request, really. I had some hope for the 2nd one, but it quickly dissolved. This one, honestly, I think ProcrastinatingReader is right. Self-noms, in my opinion, seem to be frowned upon. EggRoll97 (talk) 20:57, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Curious, do you have any knowledge of regex, given your stated intent to author filters with time and to use the test interface? If so, maybe you can elaborate on your experience & competency in that area, and perhaps that may alleviate concerns above slightly. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:14, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
    @ProcrastinatingReader: I've got to say, looking at my current knowledge of regex, it would likely look quite sad. It's mostly me figuring out what I can understand from a few filters, namely 384. EggRoll97 (talk) 20:57, 20 December 2020 (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.

Require nomination for EFH/EFM requests?Edit

Just started Wikipedia talk:Edit filter helper#Nomination requirement?; thoughts welcome. Enterprisey (talk!) 05:20, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikileaks filter (#1034) is misleadingEdit

I believe that the Wikileaks filter is misleading. The description at Special:Tags says "This edit added a deprecated source. Deprecated sources are not usually appropriate for Wikipedia articles" however Wikileaks is not a deprecated source (it's classified as generally unreliable and the consensus is that "It may be appropriate to cite a document from WikiLeaks as a primary source, but only if it is discussed by a reliable source"). Due to the tag wording users who see edits tagged by this filter revert such edits thinking it's a deprecated source.

Please note that we already have a filter for true deprecated sources. As far as I can tell there is no tag for unreliable sources - as many of them have certain legitimate uses - so the wikileaks filter should be deactivated for now. I'm not against marking generally unreliable sources but it should be a community decision and it should be applied to all of them rather than selectively. Alaexis¿question? 21:59, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

It is possible to have a filter for a particular non deprecated source. An RfC found consensus to warn for adding Facebook, for example. Not sure about Wikileaks. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:32, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
It's certainly possible but having read all posts on Wikileaks at WP:RSP (there are 13 of them) I haven't found any discussion, let alone consensus on edit filters. Alaexis¿question? 07:21, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Filter created by JzG so he can probably answer your question better, but I’m acutely aware he’s taking a semi-wikibreak atm. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:24, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
I understand that he must have got an alert when you mentioned him? Let's at least fix the factually incorrect wording (Wikileaks is not deprecated) and then discuss the merits of tagging such edits. Alaexis¿question? 07:34, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
@ProcrastinatingReader: as we are still waiting for JzG's response, could you fix the incorrect wording? Alaexis¿question? 13:31, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Only an admin can edit the interface page for the warning. But I don’t believe mediawiki:Abusefilter-warning-WikiLeaks says it’s deprecated, simply that it’s generally unreliable, which appears to be its RSP classification? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 08:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought you had the permissions to do it. You are right, but I was referring to the small tags that appear next to edits (example) where the word "deprecated" does appear. Alaexis¿question? 06:56, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Filter 712: Birth datesEdit

Noticed Filter 712 exists whilst reviewing Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BattyBot 53. Could we change this filter to also track changes in death date, not just birth date? Pinging Galobtter & Rich Farmbrough who may have interest in doing this (or anyone else!). Thanks, ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:23, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

ProcrastinatingReader   Done All the best: Rich Farmbrough 03:57, 1 January 2021 (UTC).
Thanks Rich! ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 04:11, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Edit filter 1,043 edit request: add pronouns and abbreviationsEdit

  • Change facebook|twitter|instagram| to facebook|fb|twitter|instagram|ig|
  • Change me|us to me|us|him|her|them
  • Optionally, enable for userspace (maybe not user talk though) as it's already filtering by auto-confirmed, so this could catch some U5-type promo, if that's desirable for this filter. Draft might also be viable, but possibly unnecessary. Excluding draft, this would be page_namespace == 0 to equals_to_any(page_namespace, 0, 2).

Perryprog (talk) 22:00, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

One other abbreviation that could be helpful might be "insta".

I'm also wondering if this filter could be generalized a little bit more, although that could, of course, lead to more false positives. Maybe something like checking for added text of one of the sites and a separate check for anything that looks like a social media handle, probably in the same line. This could potentially catch a wider range of situations like "Their insta: @foobar". (I'm not totally sure what the idiomatic way of implementing that would be, though.) Perryprog (talk) 22:12, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

  • I added the abbreviations. The filter already catches him/her/them (though it may not be obvious from the code) as you can see at Special:AbuseLog/28525256. Also this sort of request should go to WP:EFR. Thanks! CrowCaw 22:18, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
    • To the other items mentioned, I didn't add userspace as we do allow some leeway to users for that kind of thing. If their user page consists of *only* social media then NPP should catch it, but if its a passing line in a page full of wikipedia related stuff then it typically gets a pass. Similarly we allow limited social media listings in articles under certain conditions so an outright block of handles would be implementing a policy that doesn't exist. CrowCaw 22:24, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
      • Fair enough, the net certainly seems wide enough as it is. Perryprog (talk) 22:56, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Crow, I might be wrong because I'm pretty tired, but I believe the filter currently doesn't catch things like "follow them on @foobar at ig"; the example you linked only worked due to an alteration that looks for something similar to a handle (one word, maybe with an @)—this alteration still needs a directly preceding verb, so stuff it matches looks like "follow @foobar on instagram" and not "follow them on @foobar at instagram".

      Sorry for posting this in the wrong place; I was under the impression that EFR was for requesting new filters—its header only seems to mention requesting new filters, so it wasn't very obvious where to post this. Perryprog (talk) 22:54, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Yes it would not catch the extended version as you mentioned. It should be easy enough to have it catch "follow <pronoun> on/at @handle" with a quick variable add. It seems like that should be enough without needing the platform name in that case as it is clearly a social media spam at that point. CrowCaw 23:05, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Good point—that would also lead to a less convoluted regex. I could possibly look into rewriting it with that in mind (likely not today though), assuming you or someone else aren't already planning to. Also, the non-talk page CSS really makes this indentation funky :(. Perryprog (talk) 23:14, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I've made the change to 1043, added the handle text check. CrowCaw 23:16, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

T242821 may be of interestEdit

Related to some recent discussions about the bar for entry for EFH, phab:T242821 proposes splitting the right to use the testing interface to be separate from the right to view private filters. --DannyS712 (talk) 22:15, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Filter 733Edit

I was wondering if filter 733 could be set to disallow. This is because there's not really any reason for a new user to create a page in someone else's userspace, and also to stop the LTA Evlekis who attacks like that all the time. It might also be helpful for this to include the user talk namespace. Pahunkat (talk) 21:25, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Filer to detect new additions to "Notable people" sectionsEdit

See this AN/I thread for context. --C o r t e x 💬talk 22:53, 21 January 2021 (UTC)