Wikipedia:Edit filter noticeboard/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Update to filter 707

I recently made an update to the code that can potentially exclude users withdrawing their own report, here's what I made:

page_id == 26204397 /* False positives reports page */ &
!("confirmed" in user_groups) &
(
    (
        /* Prevent the removal or modification of [[WP:EFFPR]] headers */
        contains_any(
            removed_lines,
            "__NONEWSECTIONLINK__",
            "__NOINDEX__",
            "<noinclude>",
            "{{Wikipedia:Edit filter/False positives/Header}}",
            "{{shortcut|WP:EF/FP/R|WP:EFFPR}}",
            "</noinclude>"
        )
    ) | (
        /* Page blanking or report meddling from non-confirmed users */
        (
            new_size < 300 &
            old_size > 300 |
            edit_delta < -250
        ) &
        /* Allow users to withdraw their own report */
        !(
            user_name in removed_lines &
            user_name in page_recent_contributors
        )
    )
)

Any improvements or suggestions? Thank you. Codename Noreste 🤔 Talk 08:17, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Moving !("confirmed" in user_groups) & down might make sense, as headers shouldn't be removed by other users either. Nobody (talk) 08:24, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I like the idea, but I don't think there's really a lot of cases where a user would need to withdraw a report. Reports are responded to within a pretty decent amount of time, and archived fairly quickly after response anyways. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 15:45, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Edit filter 1298

Going to just bring this one here in case there's any opinions about it, but Hey man im josh has brought up 1298 (hist · log) on my talk page as having flooded his log with false positives (ones in which he used Capricorn right after creating the redirect). Given the sheer number of false positives and the lack of much use of the edit filter to correct these uncategorized redirects, is there anyone who would object to disabling the filter? For context, see here for the discussion being referred to on my talk page. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 21:56, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I feel like these kinds of log-only maintenance filters are often not a good idea. In my experience, these quickly ended up unmonitored and unused. I'm also personally wary of the edit filter being used for non-abuse related stuff much of the time. There are definitely legitimate use cases, but I think many requests at EFR for non-abuse related use cases were (are?) unnecessary. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:40, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I have 3 main issues with it.

1. Rcats are entirely optional. Would it be nice if people included them more? Absolutely, but a lack of them doesn't mean there's necessarily an issue. There's an implication based on this filter's existence, I believe, that a lack of rcats on the immediate creation of a redirect is a bigger sin than it really is.

2. The false positives. I often create a redirect and immediately tag it. I don't remember all the tags off the top of my head, I know the relevant ones that exist, but I don't know all the templates and I don't try to memorize them because I have tools to add the tags. I know where to find them in Capricorn and what to search in the page curation bar to add the tags. However the edit filter will still show these entries anyways.

3. If someone is looking for redirects to add tags to they'd be better served with a database query of some kind. Ideally something to the effect pages with redirects without rcats, sorted by target so that proper tagging can be done in batches.

Anyways, while I think there were good intentions with this filter, I don't believe it's actively used and helpful. It's more likely to drown out some relevant entries in an individuals abuse logs in my opinion. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:58, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I know it was mentioned in the user talk discussion, but I'll re-mention it: This filter was created as a result of this request (permalink), which, disclaimer, I took part in.

Also pinging @Geardona as the original poster of the request (even if it was a request for a warn filter). – 2804:F14:80EB:C501:DD4E:2EFB:9ECB:8A56 (talk) 20:20, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I sometimes patrol that filter log and add rcats where I'm sure, so I'd like the filter to stay enabled. Also I'm not sure if Josh knows this, but it's possible to add rcats while creating a redirect with Capricorn. If it's really that big an issue, then we can just add an exclusion for him (or the sysop user group for example) to the filter. Nobody (talk) 05:21, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I mean, is a non-abuse filter with apparently 102,147 hits over the past six months really something that's practical to monitor? That's 500 new additions per day- when compared to other common non-abuse filters, we see it trips ten times as often as filter 1030 (URLs with tracking parameters) and 1,254(oops! you broke an sfn), and five times as often as 550 (nowiki tags). Again, with all due respect to people who do monitor it- I think there might be much more efficient solutions that don't clog up individual editor's filter log. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 06:13, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I always thought that it would be better to have a tracking category for these redirects instead of a filter, but not sure if it's possible to get consensus for a tracking cat with possibly millions of redirects. Nobody (talk) 06:46, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

If there wouldn't be consensus for a tracking category, is getting around that by using an edit filter for something non-abusive really the better option? Hey man im josh (talk) 12:34, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I think it's better than having nothing at all. Especially since it's easy to remove sysops or individual users from the filters. Nobody (talk) 14:40, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

@1AmNobody24: There are millions of redirects without rcats. This is not the way to address the problem, nor is it anywhere close to an efficient way to do so. By keeping a filter such as this active we're flooding the abuse log and reducing the effectiveness of it for a few individuals who would like to occasionally find redirects to add rcats to. If those individuals have that desire, I encourage them to instead join WP:NPP and patrol the massive redirect backlog we typically have. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:01, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree that for new redirects NPP is better, it's one of the main reason I've considered applying for it. But at the same time there are millions of old redirects and ones from autopatrolled users that go unnoticed. I think there should be a way to track them. Be it a maintenance cat, a query, a filter or a external tool doesn't matter to me. Nobody (talk) 15:18, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

The old redirects, and this not being actually abusive in any sense of the word, is exactly why this edit filter doesn't make sense to keep in my opinion. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:20, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I requested a quarry query (thank you Cryptic) to see how many uncategorized redirects we have. Based on this query, it appears we have 6,265,917 uncategorized redirects at the time of the run. They also provided a sample of 10,000 uncategorized redirects. A quarry query like this, in my opinion, would be far more useful for folks attempting to categorize redirects than flooding the logs. Pinging @1AmNobody24 and @Geardona, as they've been the only two I'm aware of who expressed interest in using this filter to tag redirects. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:00, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

That looks great, thanks for doing it. I'll probably ask Cryptic for some sorted querys then and start gnoming away. Given this, I have no objections to disabling the filter. Nobody (talk) 18:36, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

The missing datum here is that there's 11,150,454 total redirects in mainspace. So less than half are categorized. —Cryptic 18:48, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

 Done Given the Quarry query seems to alleviate all concerns, I've deleted the filter. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 19:19, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

graph links broken

The links to filter graphs from Special:AbuseFilter result in a page that says "Internal error". -- mikeblas (talk) 19:07, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

You mean https://ptwikis.toolforge.org/Filters:enwiki? Can confirm the error happens.

This seems like something that would also be a good fit for WP:VPT, if there's no immediate response here.

Last person to update that link was @WOSlinker in Nov 2020. – 2804:F14:80D7:A301:3134:44A8:18ED:5881 (talk) 19:35, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

The problem is that the replica database this tool uses doesn't have the `abuse_filter_log` table available anymore. Probably because of the new protected variables thingy? XXBlackburnXx (talk) 20:24, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Most likely. There is a new box on edit filters saying "I understand that details of this filter will be hidden from users who cannot see protected variables", which likely shows up since global abuse filter helper now has abusefilter-access-protected-vars. I presume this new introduction may have broken it, though that's not necessarily the only reason. I've also raised this issue at WP:VPT. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 03:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Request for Edit Filter Helper - Zippybonzo

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.

---

Zippybonzo (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)}

Zippybonzo (talk · contribs · count) • Heya all, I’m requesting Edit Filter Helper for 2 main reasons. Firstly, I’d like to be able to help out with private filters, I’ve got a decent level of experience with regex and the filter syntax, and secondly, when handling cases of vandalism, I have a script that shows filter hits in contributions, and quite frequently, they are private filters, which often add insight as to whether the user is potentially an LTA, which helps with my anti-vandalism work. It will also allow me to help process private filters false positives. Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (they/them) 16:12, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

• I don't really see that you have done much with filters recently. Xtools says that you've only made 112 edits to WP:EFFPR, when the average benchmark is around 500, and only 3 have been in the last 3 months. I don't really see you in the page history of WP:EFR suggesting regex or actual filters either recently and xtools says you have only made 1 edit to that page. On this very page, you haven't made any edits (besides this request) since february. I'm leaning oppose to granting this right to you for now until you can demonstrate that you are active in the area. Like many have said, this right is only given to the most trusted users and is similar to being granted sysop privileges. After one to two years of solid work in this area, I think you would be ready for this right. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 18:00, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
• All I wanted to say is above, so oppose. Not enough recent contributions to EFFPR, nor enough at all. Your only contribution to EFR has been to suggest using the spam blacklist once. If you succeed in admin elections, which you are currently running in, this will be moot, though, since EFH is implicit in sysop. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 18:07, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

  @EggRoll97, the reason for requesting access was primarily to assist anti vandalism work, and the occasional handling of EFFP reports. Admittedly the whole request is moot atp, however I’m not expecting to succeed in AELECT because I’ve not been recently active enough, but I digress. It’s more that frequently when I come across disruptive editors tripping filters, they are private and it makes it a pain to handle said editors. The mention of EFFP was intended to come across as an, “as well it would mean I could” rather than a “that is why I am requesting”. Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (they/them) 18:28, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

  You satisfy the necessity for trust, but EFH is not generally given for anti-vandalism. This isn't meant as a slight against you, just that EFH is very rarely given, and I don't see much of a need here. The majority of filters are public filters (174 public filters, 157 private filters), and deal with most vandalism. Without a significant need past just anti-vandalism, I'm afraid my oppose remains. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 18:37, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

• Because of the concerns mentioned above, I oppose. The comment above is relevant, given that EFH is handed out to highly trusted users (comparable to holding either the administrator privilege or an advanced global permission) who want to help with filters, such as authoring either conditions that can track LTAs or somewhat complex regex to private filters. I would recommend helping on EFR and EFFPR for at least one whole year, then you might be ready to give a more solid explanation about your demonstrated need for this highly sensitive right. Codename Noreste 🤔 Talk 19:58, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
• The earliest closure has started, so could an admin close as not granted? – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 15:18, 28 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.

"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.