Welcome to the edit filter noticeboard |
---|
Recent filter changes (
):Filter 637 — Flags: disabled
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.
|
Archives |
---|
Threads older than 20 days may be archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Contents
Whitelisting in filter 247?
I watch the "added email address" tag, and I've noticed a few false positives the past couple days on WP:Files for discussion where people mention that they've contacted permissions-en@wikimedia.org and their edit gets flagged for adding an email address (example). If Special:AbuseFilter/247 has a way of excluding specific addresses, would it make sense to whitelist *@wikimedia.org? If it doesn't have that, would that be a worthwhile addition? Might be an uncommon enough need that it isn't worth doing, but figured I'd ask. creffett (talk) 01:05, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- Creffett - With the way that the edit filter is currently coded, it is set to check if the current edit being made is to the mainspace or the Wikipedia namespace in one condition. It currently does not have separate conditions which allow exceptions only if the current change is being made to the Wikipedia namespace. Ideally, we should still flag edits made to the mainspace that add email addresses - even if they include "@wikimedia.org"; they don't belong in the mainspace at all. However, I think that you have a good thought here. I would have to implement this by separating the namespace check condition, and adding an exception like this only if the namespace being edited is the Wikipedia namespace. It shouldn't be too hard to do... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 16:53, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Filter 320
Hello. I have just looked at filter 320, and noticed that it checks if the page title includes "Mother insult". However, Mother insult is a redirect (seemingly since 2010) to Maternal insult. Should it be changed? Edible Melon (talk) 10:48, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Edible Melon: CC @MusikAnimal, who made the edit that introduced the
page_title
check - Special:AbuseFilter/history/320/diff/prev/19804 --DannyS712 (talk) 12:12, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
EFH for DannyS712 (2)
- 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.
- Earliest closure has started. (refresh)
Hi. I'd like to request edit filter helper again. Since my previous request, I have continued helping out at the false positives report page, but have also gotten more active in other edit filter-related business. Recently, I proposed a new filter that is now logging at 632 (hist · log), and in the past have requested edits to filters after manually scanning through log entries or recent changes, and this would allow me to use the testing interface. See, most recently, #Expanding 664 above, but also Wikipedia:Edit filter noticeboard/Archive 5#False negatives (the first part currently logging for testing at 839 (hist · log), the second incorporated into 680 (hist · log)), Wikipedia:Edit filter noticeboard/Archive 5#Semi-false positives at 657, and Wikipedia:Edit filter/False positives/Archive 102#Tiptoeslightly (implemented at 384 (hist · log)). Users without access to private filters can request to view them on an individual basis (WP:PRIVATEFILTER), and Oshwah has shown me a version of 51 (hist · log), but it has changed since then, meaning that I couldn't deal with Wikipedia:Edit filter/False positives/Reports#199.250.32.53 by myself. In short, I'm requesting this right primarily to access the testing interface, so that I can see the effect of changes before I propose them, and so that I can view private filters to respond to false positives and related.
Per Wikipedia:Edit filter helper#Process for requesting, I'm now notifying users who participated in the previous discussion. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 05:20, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- All notified, see [1] DannyS712 (talk) 05:27, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Administrator note: prior request closed as no-consensus to add in January 2019. — xaosflux Talk 05:38, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support. Seems like there's a solid basis for demonstrated need and technical expertise. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 06:47, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support. Clear need from a trusted, highly active user. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:32, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Inclined to Support this time round due to the demonstrated technical proficiency in other areas, as well as usually helpful contributions on the EF pages. CrowCaw 19:54, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Obvious support. I know it's not a vote, but I trust Danny with the ability to see private filters. They're active on all sorts of wikimedia projects, and this will be a great win for the project to let them help out with more edit filter requests. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 16:53, 5 August 2019 (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.
Filter 971 and fixes to filter times
(see Wikipedia:Edit_filter/Requested/Archive_13#File_name_changes for previous discussion)
Unarchiving because phab:T219092 has been fixed (when it is deployed the next WP:THURSDAY), so the slow filter dashboard should report more accurate results. @MusikAnimal: are you still monitoring the slow filter dashboard? I think we can test reenabling the filter with the more accurate timings and see if it is reported as slow. Galobtter (pingó mió) 03:43, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Galobtter: I just read through this entire thread wondering why I hadn't seen t, since the dates go back to October - seeing the rational, can I suggest that this be moved to WP:EFN, since it affects more than just this filter? --DannyS712 (talk) 04:20, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
AfD filter
Based on the discussion here: WP:AN/I#183.177.231.187 IP editor mass !voting at AFD (almost botlike) (permalink)
I created the following possible edit filter:
user_age == 0 & page_namespace == 4 & page_title rlike "Articles for deletion/"
This would theoretically prevent any IP user from editing an AFD discussion. Can I get feedback on it? –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 15:36, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- There are a number of private filters already available, some of which may or may not be running, but yes something like that would do what you say should it ever be required. Since you asked for feedback, there is no need to use
rlike
(regex) which is more expensive thancontains
(plain text). -- zzuuzz (talk) 15:54, 7 August 2019 (UTC)- I regularly close AFDs and I've seen plenty of useful contributions from IP addresses, sometimes comments and sometimes formatting. Is there a specific pattern of IP addresses doing this? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:04, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Just a quick note that this isn't the place to decide whether IPs should be permitted to contribute to AfD discussions, that would need to be a (fairly substantial) RfC elsewhere. Sam Walton (talk) 16:16, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- I don't think anyone's suggesting that (or at least I hope not), but in some emergency short-term situations (like the one mentioned) it's something that it might be wise to be prepared for. In any case, always poke the other edit filter managers, because we have ways to avoid such severe actions. -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:20, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Samwalton9 and Jo-Jo Eumerus: zzuuzz has it right. There was recently an incident of an LTA (via IP) spamming keep votes at AFDs. It was thrown out there that maybe an edit filter would help. There wasn't any public ones I was aware of, so I wanted to try my hand at writing one. I'm not asking for it to be implemented or anything.
@zzuuzz: Thank you for that feedback! –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:30, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Samwalton9 and Jo-Jo Eumerus: zzuuzz has it right. There was recently an incident of an LTA (via IP) spamming keep votes at AFDs. It was thrown out there that maybe an edit filter would help. There wasn't any public ones I was aware of, so I wanted to try my hand at writing one. I'm not asking for it to be implemented or anything.
- I don't think anyone's suggesting that (or at least I hope not), but in some emergency short-term situations (like the one mentioned) it's something that it might be wise to be prepared for. In any case, always poke the other edit filter managers, because we have ways to avoid such severe actions. -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:20, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Filter 960
960 (hist · log)
Can I suggest that action = 'delete'
be excluded? Any admin can delete a user script, and I assume the intent of this was to log edits by interface admins. Just an idea --DannyS712 (talk) 04:39, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Sorta Done: @DannyS712:, changed it to only match on actual edits, as that was the original intent. — xaosflux Talk 13:10, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Xaosflux: Thanks. However, can I suggest that the restrictions check be put first? It'll be the most effective filter. Also, unless the filter is intentionally excluding edits made by interface editors, etc., the check on user groups containing sysop seems redundant. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 08:15, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- @DannyS712: "restrictions"? Some of the checks are cheaper then others, of those we usually but the ones that avoid the most edits first. (Some of this is mooted by efficiency improvements in the abuse filter parser). Checking things like "namespace" is cheaper then a regex - so it is normally first, especially if it is one with low edits (such as ns:2). Also, filter 960 doesn't have conditions about user groups - I think you're getting filters confused. — xaosflux Talk 11:08, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Xaosflux: Thanks. However, can I suggest that the restrictions check be put first? It'll be the most effective filter. Also, unless the filter is intentionally excluding edits made by interface editors, etc., the check on user groups containing sysop seems redundant. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 08:15, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
The right way to create a new (edit) Tag?
Could any wise friends on this page kindly point me to where should I go to if I want to apply for a new Tag to be activated for en-Wiki (or global)? I built a tool that I want to have something similar to tags like STiki to mark all edits created by that tool. Previously discussed on Wikipedia_talk:Tags#How_to_(apply_to)_add_new_tags?
An admin (@Graham87:) expressed interest to help create one, but neither of us know what to do and what's the right process. Please kindly advise. Thank you!
Xinbenlv(t) please notify me with {{ping}} 06:41, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Xinbenlv: probably asking here is the best option, since admins and edit filter manager are the only ones that can create tags, and edit filter managers are probably more familiar with them. But, you'll need an admin to create the relevant messages. To answer your other questions, tags can only be created for enwiki (as far as I know global tags come from either the core ChangeTags::definedSoftwareTags, an extension (like mass message) or through a global abuse filter). To create a tag, someone with the rights needs to go to Special:Tags. At the top there is a field to create a new tag, and all you need is a key for it. Then, an admin should create
MediaWiki:tag-$name
andMediaWiki:tag-$name-description
for the tag to have a proper name and description (but these aren't technically necessary). Hope this helps --DannyS712 (talk) 07:13, 13 August 2019 (UTC)- @DannyS712: thank you! @Graham87:, it seems DennyS712 gave a thorough instruction, could you help us create the tag with the instructions from provided by DennyS712, if you see it fit? Xinbenlv(t) please notify me with {{ping}} 09:12, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Xinbenlv and DannyS712: I've created it as "WikiLoop Battlefield" with the title at MediaWiki:Tag-WikiLoop Battlefield and the description at MediaWiki:Tag-WikiLoop Battlefield-description. Graham87 10:34, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- @DannyS712: thank you! @Graham87:, it seems DennyS712 gave a thorough instruction, could you help us create the tag with the instructions from provided by DennyS712, if you see it fit? Xinbenlv(t) please notify me with {{ping}} 09:12, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- None of these seem to be able to add Tag to the edit. Can you help me understand what's the best way to apply the tag with the URL? Xinbenlv(t) please notify me with {{ping}} 12:08, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- Since you are here @Xaosflux:, could you help me understand how to do it? Xinbenlv(t) please notify me with {{ping}} 12:09, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Xinbenlv: generally client-requested tags are made as part of your edit request when using the api, not the webui. Is your new custom tag using the API? See also mw:API:Tag. — xaosflux Talk 12:53, 15 August 2019 (UTC)