Wikipedia:Edit filter noticeboard

"WP:EFN" redirects here. For information on the {{efn}} template, see WP:EXPLNOTE.

Welcome to the edit filter noticeboard

WATCH Recent filter changes (): Filter 1310 — Flags: disabled Last changed at 23:47, 2 July 2024 (UTC) Filter 1313 (restored) — Flags: enabled Last changed at 05:08, 30 June 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. There are currently 331 enabled filters and 47 stale filters with no hits in the past 30 days. Filter condition use is ~1024, out of a maximum of 2000. (). See also the profiling data and edit filter graphs. Click here to start a new discussion thread

Request to remove a user from filter 856's line 8

Please remove Vami IV from filter 856's line 8 (copyvio clerks) because that user has passed away. Thank you. Codename Noreste 🤔 Talk 19:06, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

 Done -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:58, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Did other cleanup there, the current list of names is useless, and the group is really the right way to handle that anyway. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:20, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

A quick thought: Should WP:EFM be a page instead of a section?

I've wondered for a while whether WP:EFM should be an actual page (similar to WP:EFH), rather than just a section on the edit filter page. Does anyone have any thoughts about whether this might break WP:CREEP, or whether this might be beneficial? EggRoll97 ^(talk) 01:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

At this point, yea - I've been meaning to do it forever and just kept putting it off. Feel free to draft something modeled on Wikipedia:Edit filter helper. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:06, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't object to this thought at all, but it's also worth noting that administrators can only modify edit filters that use restricted actions, as well as being able to enable such actions on filters. Codename Noreste 🤔 Talk 03:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Will do, though functionally the only restricted action is block-autopromote, which hasn't been used in over a decade, and would likely need multiple discussions to just have a single filter with it enabled anyways. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 21:31, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

@Xaosflux and Codename Noreste: Thoughts on what I've whipped up currently at Wikipedia:Edit filter manager? EggRoll97 ^(talk) 23:50, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

@EggRoll97 the revocation criteria prob need work, as it is generally not appropriate for admins to just remove this from other admins, as opposed to the non-admin EFMs. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:59, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

If this is going to contain any changes from the current content that are meaningful, like criteria for revocation, we should have a slightly more formal discussion/approval of the changes. E.g. "The editor has failed to report to an administrator after noticing unauthorized use of their account..." - if I were ever to notice unauthorized use of my account, I don't think I would be reporting it to admins on each wiki I have advanced rights. I would change my passwords and probably mention it to stewards, perform a crosswiki audit of every action performed recently, and likely reach out to the WMF security team since I have 2FA and would be curious how someone had bypassed it, but why do I need to tell an enwiki admin if when compromised the account didn't make any changes on enwiki? --DannyS712 (talk) 01:00, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Also "If a previous application for edit filter manager or edit filter helper was unsuccessful" - I think I had an unsuccessful EFH request before I was granted it, but when I applied for EFM this currently suggests that I should have pinged the participants of the successful EFH discussion. I.e. I should have told the people at Special:Permalink/909783210#EFH for DannyS712 (2) about my EFM request, which would feel like canvassing to me. --DannyS712 (talk) 01:03, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

@DannyS712: I've removed the "edit filter helper" bit currently, that was just a copy direct from WP:EFH, I thought I took out the helper one. The intention was only to require notification about prior EFM requests. As for the account security language, I'm pretty sure that's just the standard language, but I don't see much reason for it to be in there honestly. It was just part of EFH and so got copied over. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 01:55, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: I should ask, why would removal of this right from an admin not be considered appropriate? Admins are able to self-grant, so their granting of edit filter manager rights isn't subject to a community process in the same manner as non-admin EFMs (they are given adminship at RfA, though that doesn't necessarily assess technical ability unless the admin is running on being a tech-admin). I'd actually think it should be easier to remove from an admin, considering it would be trivially easy to regrant (just a talk page discussion between the revoking admin and the revokee), compared to the process to re-grant to a non-admin (a formal request to WP:EFN, requiring the action of an admin to re-grant). EggRoll97 ^(talk) 01:55, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Short answer, sanctioning admins is always a "big deal". — xaosflux ^Talk 09:35, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

@EggRoll97: I'm seeing a lot of WP:CREEP in there. For example, it's never been a convention that disabling a filter, or changing it from disallow to log-only requires discussion. Sometimes, the meme dies a natural death, or the LTA gets bored, and a discussion will be the very thing that brings them back. I think any new rules for EFMs should be in response to some problem that's actually happened, not a problem that might happen. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:42, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

@Suffusion of Yellow: Yeah...I may have just gone on a bit when trying to start as detailed as possible. Removed, it doesn't make much sense in hindsight. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 00:42, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 01:07, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Tonight I made a couple edits to WP:EFH and WP:EFM that reduce WP:CREEP. We had a couple very detailed procedures for things that almost never happen, so I deleted those sections or changed them to a couple sentences. Hope it helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:12, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae: In Special:Diff/1230686585, should say edit filter helper, right? – 2804:F14:80BA:C801:4029:C761:8E13:F724 (talk) 22:17, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Fixed now. Thanks for alerting me. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:21, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Request to change line 4 of filter 98

98 (hist · log) (Creating very short new article, public)

Per Wikipedia:Edit filter/Traps and pitfalls#user_rights, I would suggest changing !"extendedconfirmed" in user_rights & on line 4 with !contains_any(user_groups, "extendedconfirmed", "sysop", "bot") & because of this: but this will not work as expected if the user did not grant editprotected when setting up a bot password.. user_rights may be limited if the user has logged in using a bot password, or is editing with an OAuth application. Thank you. Codename Noreste 🤔 Talk 00:41, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

@Codename Noreste  Done, nice catch: Special:AbuseFilter/history/98/diff/prev/32847 --DannyS712 (talk) 00:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Error when saving filters

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T368203

Heads up: as of last WP:THURSDAY attempting to save certain filters will give you a Fatal exception of type "MediaWiki\Extension\AbuseFilter\Parser\Exception\UserVisibleException". See the task for details. If you need to disable a filter and can't wait for the problem to be fixed, just blank and disable it, but remember you won't be able to restore the old version until the bug is fixed. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 01:36, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Set 491 to disallow

I think 491 end ! To disallow 128.234.101.4 (talk) 10:23, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Wouldn't be against it, though warn seems to already be working fairly well. Basically, I see the technical accuracy, but not the necessity of setting it to disallow. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 20:36, 4 July 2024 (UTC)