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 189 — Flags: private; Pattern modified Last changed at 03:46, 8 November 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 325 enabled filters and 48 stale filters with no hits in the past 30 days. Filter condition use is ~1033, out of a maximum of 2000. (). See also the profiling data and edit filter graphs. Click here to start a new discussion thread

"Dumb premise"

Via Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Vandalsock – yet another viral challenge. We appear to have a filter that intercepts social media and 'viral' nonsense, so please can someone add edits that include "dumb premise" and/or "bloodless series" to that filter? 81.2.123.64 (talk) 17:34, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Which filter is this? EggRoll97 ^(talk) 04:40, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I think they mean 614 (hist · log) Nobody (talk) 05:22, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, perhaps any more evidence of further disruption, in addition to these two accounts mentioned on the ANI archive link? Codename Noreste 🤔 Talk 15:44, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Seems fairly infrequent. I'm not necessarily eager to add the new terms without a bit more evidence of present disruption. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 22:32, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Question about the 'Arbitration contentious topics alerts' filter

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.

---

• 602 (hist · log)

Maybe don't change the filter just to accommodate my unwillingness to create an account (again, like 707 at the top), but is there any reason for this filter to only go off for confirmed-or-up editors like it's currently setup? Is it just optimization? I have alerted people of contentious topics before (though, I think, only once: diff). – 2804:F1...88:7F3B (::/32) (talk) 22:09, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

By removing "confirmed" in user_groups, the filter should apply to ALL non-bot users, similar to 1016 (hist · log). Codename Noreste 🤔 Talk 17:38, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm okay with removing the confirmed check (possibly replacing with !"bot" in user_groups instead? On the other hand, it's unlikely a bot would be tripping this filter). I'll leave it for a day or so in case anyone feels the need to comment regarding it with any objections. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 22:23, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

602 already excludes bots. Codename Noreste 🤔 Talk 23:06, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

You're right, it does. My bad. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 01:42, 31 October 2024 (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.

Disable 1288?

1288 (hist · log)

In accordance with the process defined at Wikipedia:Edit_filter#Requesting_edit_filters, I propose the disabling of filter 1288 following concerns raised by Codename Noreste at EFFPR about false positives. I can't really describe this one, but EFHs/EFMs/sysops will be able to take a look. I have emailed the administrator who enabled the filter as of 19 days ago for clarification and discussion regarding the matter, but have received no response. In the filter results, I see a mix of common vandalism (which is either caught by other filters or would probably be caught immediately at RecentChanges) and false positives, but as far as I can tell, not a lot that actually matches the filter's intent. This is a cursory review, I'd welcome anyone setting me straight on it if I'm missing a large swathe of true hits. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 22:29, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I can confirm that the target mentioned in the notes of filter 1288 aren't using any of the IP addresses in the ranges within the filter, and therefore, I strongly support this. Yes, they even know 1273 is for them. Codename Noreste 🤔 Talk 23:01, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, been busy recently and haven't been able to respond much. Feel free to disable the filter. I don't expect to have the time to maintain it in the foreseeable future, unfortunately. —Ingenuity (t • c) 02:26, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done Per consensus. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 02:34, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Request for Edit Filter Manager or Edit Filter Helper

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.

---

Z. Patterson (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · ev · fm · mms · npr · pm · pc · rb · te)}

As a newly returned Wikipedian, I am interested in helping make or change edit filters to decrease the likelihood of disruptive editing. I was away from Wikimedia for several years, but I decided to come back. In 2024, I learned programming languages, and I also analyzed some edit filters before I came back. Thank you for your time and consideration. Z. Patterson (talk) 04:11, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

@Z. Patterson: Is this a request for EFM or for EFH? They are extremely different groups. See here for a description of edit filter managers and here for edit filter helpers. As a side note though, I will note that you don't appear to have any edit filter related contributions to your record, and generally those who successfully request either group have demonstrated a high level of experience. Can you point to any edit filter work you've done? EggRoll97 ^(talk) 05:10, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

See below. Z. Patterson (talk) 05:16, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Welcome back to Wikipedia. The permission you are requesting is not given to users solely based on knowledge of regex and filter syntax; it is granted only to highly trusted users who have demonstrated need for it. I do not see any edits on edit filter-related pages, and this request is your only contribution to this noticeboard. This is also only your fourth edit since 2015. I would suggest spending one to two years reviewing edit filter false positive reports and suggesting changes to public filters before requesting EFH. – DreamRimmer (talk) 05:12, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I understand now. Thank you. Z. Patterson (talk) 05:13, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Z. Patterson Is it safe to assume the above comment is a withdrawal of this request? EggRoll97 ^(talk) 05:14, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes. For now, I plan to withdraw this request and wait until I get more experience. Z. Patterson (talk) 05:15, 2 November 2024 (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.

Edit to 614

@Codename Noreste: suggested that we should modify the part of 614 (hist · log) that says (?:sean\s(?:\"?diddy\"?\s)?(?:(?:combs)|(?:john)))|(?:p?\s?didd(?:(?:y)|(?:ler)))|(?:puff\sdaddy)|(?:p\sdiddy) into sean\s?(?:\"?diddy\"?\s?)?(?:combs|john)|(?:p\s?)?didd(?:ler|y)|puff\s?daddy. As he said, this version of that code is less expensive in general. I have tested it thoroughly, and it seems to work about as well as the expanded code. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 00:27, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Request

My apologies but I am proposing a new crosswiki LTA filter, however, the request page explicitly states that such request be directed to wikipedia-en-editfilterslists.wikimedia.org, but to prevent possible outing, I refrain from doing so. I am willing though to send a Wikipedia email... ToadetteEdit (talk) 09:29, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to send me the mail and I'll post it on the list for you. Nobody (talk) 09:43, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Edit filter manager for Codename Noreste

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.

---

Codename Noreste (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · ev · fm · mms · npr · pm · pc · rb · te)}

Hello, everyone. A few months ago, I was granted the edit filter helper right (as of July 13) and the global abuse filter helper right (as of September 6), and I am requesting the community to be granted the edit filter manager privilege as a non-administrator. My technical competence has improved significantly over the last few months when working with local and global filters as an EFH and a GAFH, and I have helped with the following filters: filter 707 (a previously disabled filter that currently stops disruption at EFFPR), a new private filter on the edit filter mailing list, and Meta filters 324, 344, 345, 360, 362, 365, 375, and 377.

Furthermore, if the permission was granted, I also plan to import some of Meta's private filters to here if needed, to fix any filter's regex or conditions if issues arise, to add or modify the conditions of local LTA filters that I have authored/maintained/edited on behalf on some edit filter managers (mainly 936 , 1292 , 1308 , and parts of 1319 ), and to commit to reducing the current backlog of the edit filter mailing list by implementing suggestions.

I understand that this privilege is extremely dangerous if used on the wrong hands or with malicious intent, and I will use extreme caution and common sense when editing filters, especially when editing regex strings. I confirm that 2FA is already enabled on my main account, and I am available to respond to any feedback, questions, or concerns. Thank you for your consideration. Codename Noreste 🤔 Talk 05:00, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

• Support. Extremely active on the edit filter mailing list. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:41, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

  Courtesy links:

  • meta:Steward requests/Global permissions/2024-09#Global abuse filter helper for Codename Noreste
  • Wikipedia:Edit filter noticeboard/Archive 13#Edit filter helper for Codename Noreste (third nomination)
  • Wikipedia:Edit filter noticeboard/Archive 12#Edit filter helper request for 64andtim

  –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:46, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

• Procedural note: The administrator's noticeboard has been notified in accordance with WP:EFM at Special:Diff/1255917465. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 07:55, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support. Despite a minor lingering concern over eagerness on overhauling filters, I will chalk this up to mainly a difference of opinion. I have no doubt as to their technical competency, and I haven't noticed anything majorly problematic. The comments by Daniel actually reminded me of multiple specific incidents in which I cautioned Codename Noreste via email about publicly talking about filters that were intentionally private. Because of that, I must oppose given I cannot trust in their discretion in good faith. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 08:00, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support. Trusted and well experienced user. --TenWhile6 08:38, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
• Neutral On one hand, I know that they have made great contributions, especially to certain LTA filters, both here and on meta. On the other hand, there have been some discussion like this and this one which just didn't leave me with a good feeling. I've also seen comments by them that they intended to run for EFM next year or a year after they get EFH. What changed? Nobody (talk) 08:53, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

  (updated response) About the first discussion, I have changed my decision to run for EFM yesterday, and for Meta adminship, I decided not to run for that to avoid hat collecting. For the second discussion you mentioned, the CAPTCHA bypassed when I tested it with my alt/test account. An IP address mentioned that to me, and I told them there were no further replies to the task related to the CAPTCHA action after thanking them for the notification. For these two, I assumed good faith. Because of some very active LTAs, per the first sentence, that's what led me to run for EFM yesterday. I also have another filter targeting 1311's target in mind. Codename Noreste 🤔 Talk 15:13, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

  While I still don't understand what exactly happened in my CAPTCHA conversation, I didn't see it as anything to give a bad impression about, just some level of failure of communication.

  I won't vote, but I guess the only thing I'd ask of you, Codename Noreste, because it's recent, is what your thought process was behind revealing vague details about the LTA filter 1288 - I know of course that you're not the first to talk about some aspect of a private filter in vague terms, but I still want to know how you approach this. – 2804:F1...EF:A81F (::/32) (talk) 03:10, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

  I apologize for these two mistakes that I may have done, but as I said before regarding filter 1288, see here. Codename Noreste 🤔 Talk 03:33, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

  I meant revealing that the filter was focused on specific ranges of IPs, obviously that LTA would know about 'filter 1273', considering that was the public name of the now disabled filter 1288 ('LTA 1273'), as well as the public name of other filters targeting them. Was it because they weren't using those IPs anymore, so you felt that that information wasn't useful anymore, or what? I just want to understand how you decide if a detail like that is fine to talk about in public or not. – 2804:F1...EF:A81F (::/32) (talk) 03:47, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

  I did not mention what are the specific ranges used within the filter, but we should not discuss further about the vandal, and let's continue with my self-nomination for EFM. Codename Noreste 🤔 Talk 04:33, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

• I do not see anything significant to oppose, and 1AmNobody24's diffs do not appear to be significant. I do wonder whether this user is ramping up too fast though. Leaderboard (talk) 11:50, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support per above. I've made filters with CN before, and fully trust him with this right. Changed to neutral because I don't know about these concerns but because they seem significant. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 15:42, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
• CN seems to be a trustworthy user and I don't doubt their abilities; I'm sure they will do good work if they become an EFM. The request seems a little on the early side to me though. CN only registered 17 months ago and this is a flag that is sometimes considered more sensitive than sysop. I'm good either way, but just want to be cautious. Ternera (talk) 16:59, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. Codename Noreste has previously revealed private filter information on multiple occasions (in addition to the above example) in a way that has likely damaged the effectiveness of several filters, and I remain concerned about their discretion with sensitive data. It often seems like the point is to demonstrate their access to private information rather than necessity. They are also very persistent about low priority changes, which does not inspire confidence in how they might approach an expanded role. I am also concerned their approach could lead to filters becoming more complex and difficult to maintain. Combined with a persistent and unnecessarily urgent focus on acquiring permissions, I am concerned that they lack the caution and restraint essential for an EFM. Regretfully, I am closer to recommending a review of their EFH status than supporting this promotion to EFM. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 11:24, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose for now per the above, and discussion on the mailing list. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 14:17, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Because of the ongoing criticism and concerns, I officially withdraw this. Codename Noreste 🤔 Talk 15:03, 8 November 2024 (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.

Protected filters

It seems we can now add the 'Protected' flag to a filter, which seems to irreversibly activate abusefilter-access-protected-vars for that filter. Apparently using user_unnamed_ip in a filter automatically protects the filter (part of the temporary accounts thing), but this flag can also be set manually. As I understand it, with our current rights setup, this prevents the filter from being viewed by (local) EFH and EFMs. Some of this seems a bit iffy to me, but in particular I'm sure we don't have a policy about any of it. Am I missing something? Do we have any thoughts? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:23, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

A few days ago, Ohnoitsjamie protected 1165 (hist · log), but 1033 (hist · log) would also be a good candidate for protection. We could add information about protected filters) to the edit filter project page regarding this. I believe this might require consensus on the mailing list or somewhere to mark a filter as protected. Codename Noreste 🤔 Talk 23:08, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Weird - I did not intend to protect that (wasn't even aware that was a thing), must have been an accidental click. It's odd that it can't be undone. My intention is that all of my filters should be accessible and viewable by edit filter helpers and managers, but hidden otherwise, as they mostly target LTAs who are always looking for ways around them. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:28, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Ohnoitsjamie, I've sent you another email, with more reasons that should never be discussed on public. Codename Noreste 🤔 Talk 23:36, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

These filters are already private. You are saying, with our current rights, that we should disallow local EFM and EFH from viewing these filters and their logs? Actually I'd disagree. But it's weird that global AFH have this right, but not local groups. If we give this right to local groups then I don't see any benefit to protecting a filter (other than the benefit of irreversibility). Also, I'm not on the mailing list (and don't have a good opinion of off-wiki consensus). -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:25, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I didn't say we should not allow non-administrator EFMs and EFHs to view/edit protected filters. They can, but they might want to sign the confidentiality agreement for personal information first. Codename Noreste 🤔 Talk 23:37, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

The current effect is that they won't be able to view the filters or their logs. Moreover, as I understand it signing an NDA does not grant this right. I doubt global AFH have to sign an NDA, yet they have this right, and for the record I have signed an NDA but only the checkuser version and nothing related to temporary accounts (though whether I'm relevant is debatable). -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:47, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I brought it up at T369610#10233370 last month to Tran (WMF), since I assumed there would be some inpact for us even before temporary accounts came to enwiki. I believe it should be possible to determine per local consesus to give access to EFM and EFH before temporary accounts come are enabled here Nobody (talk) 07:18, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't seem there's been any discussion about 'abusefilter-access-protected-vars' before on enwiki[1] (about who should have the right anyways).

The documentation also says that the logs generated by a protected filter are only visible to people with a different right (abusefilter-protected-vars-log, mw:diff, added 4 days ago) which, if I'm to believe Special:ListGroupRights, is currently only given by default to checkusers (not even admins)? Is this correct? (*edit: if the phab is correct, this is not what this right is) – 2804:F1...37:F619 (::/32) (talk) 23:38, 8 November 2024 (UTC) *edited 00:19, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Only administrators of this project have this right. As for the CheckUser thing, I am not sure. Codename Noreste 🤔 Talk 23:39, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I think you're right. So let's compare EFH, Global AFH, some random non-EFM admin, EFM admin, and me, checkuser. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:00, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

I did some searching and I think the current 'default' state of things is coming from this phab: T369610.

Seems mostly to be adjusting for Legal's decisions. – 2804:F1...37:F619 (::/32) (talk) 00:02, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Apologies, per phab:T369610#10240941, by the same person who wrote the documentation in my diff, 'abusefilter-protected-vars-log' is not a right that allows people to view the logs generated by protected abusefilters, but instead a right that gates access to the audit/usage logs of when someone views information around protected variables - the same right that lets people edit protected filters let them view the filter logs.

Basically, pretty much irrelevant to working with protected filters themselves - if it's just some meta-logs. – 2804:F1...37:F619 (::/32) (talk) 00:18, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Well to begin with filters shouldn't be applied irreversible protections as was done to Special:AbuseFilter/1165, especially since it was needless as it does not make use of user_unnamed_ip. This is a temporary accounts-related privacy change. Filters that most likely do need protection (and migration) include Special:AbuseFilter/847, for instance. I'm still not quite sure what abusefilter-protected-vars-log does though. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 00:40, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

If I finally understood, that just lets checkusers see logs like these(phab, gerrit), but specific to viewing protected filter logs/vars.

The documentation is just confusing. – 2804:F1...37:F619 (::/32) (talk) 00:50, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

As I understand it, migration (when it happens) should automatically trigger the protection and it won't need adding manually. So the documentation is inconsistent, and the rights will probably be changing at some point. At this time I maintain that protecting a filter prevents any access from EFHs and EFMs. Whether this will be true in the future is unknown, but in any case there seems to me to be dubious benefits to manually adding protection. Either people viewing private filters are going to be allowed protected access, or we choose to deny their access through protection based on other aritrary criteria. I'd suggest we just don't allow it to be manually added (through policy and signposting) at this time. Or at least agree that we don't encourage it. We might need to have further discussions at some point about adding user_unnamed_ip around migration time, since it will apply that irreversible protection. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 01:00, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

We could always get ahead of the game, technically, and form a consensus to add abusefilter-access-protected-vars to EFH and EFM. Everyone in those groups (with the exception of SPI clerks) is in there by some form of consensus, so I doubt the WMF would object given I don't see anyone with less than 6 months tenure and 300 edits (the criteria for access to temporary account IPs) being an EFH, much less an EFM. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 02:50, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Only commenting on the last part of what you said, note that some bots have EFH and EFM, but may not meet those specific criteria. For example, ProcBot II has EFM and does not have 300 edits. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 03:33, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Fair, though its operator meets the criteria, and I imagine the bot would just be judged by the operator's eligibility. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 04:21, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

So realistically I'm thinking we shouldn't be protecting any filters at all unless the software blocks saving a filter absent a protection. With not every EFH and EFM being necessarily able to access protected filters, we shouldn't be using the toggle, given it's basically just a glorified and irreversible action of setting a filter private, but named differently. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 02:50, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: There's phab:T377765 and phab:T378553 about warning/preventing irreversible protections if no PII variables like user_unnamed_ip are used. Johannnes89 (talk) 09:18, 10 November 2024 (UTC)