Wikipedia:Edit filter noticeboard
Welcome to the edit filter noticeboard |
---|
Filter 614 — Pattern modified
Filter 869 — Pattern modified
Filter 1132 — Pattern modified
Filter 735 — Pattern modified
Filter 1304 (new) — Actions: throttle; Flags: enabled,private; Pattern modified
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 320 enabled filters and 49 stale filters with no hits in the past 30 days. Filter condition use is ~979, out of a maximum of 2000. ( ). See also the profiling data and edit filter graphs. |
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Set filter 1076 to warn[edit]
("Draftified article more than 180 days old")
Has some inevitable false positives due to AfDs, but people closing those know what they're doing. Otherwise there are a lot of draftifications of old articles by people who either don't realize how old the page is, don't know they're not supposed to do that, or both, and it would be nice if they could be warned as they do it, not later if someone happens to notice. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:43, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
I agree, so I support warning. Changed to neutral because of the amount of FPs. Also note that if this passes, we'll have to make a new and specialized warning template but I'm sure you already know that... – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 16:36, 20 April 2024 (UTC)- Also support. EggRoll97 (talk) 17:56, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- I'm on the leaning side of opposing due to the sheer amount of FPs and possibilities to pause and break scripts. Codename Noreste 🤔 La Suma 03:40, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Not opposed to this, but both User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js or User:MPGuy2824/MoveToDraft.js just say something like this when a filter is tripped:
Could not move page: API error: abusefilter-warning Try again ?
Also MPGuy's version already gives this warning:
which is kind of hard to miss. Ideally, these script would be updated to show the parsed warning, though I'm not sure how much of an effect it will have. (Courtesy pings Evad37, MPGuy2824.) Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:45, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- There are also, of course, manual draftifications not using the script, which currently get no warning. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:17, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, it's probably a fair trade-off even the if the scripts don't display the warning properly. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:39, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure about this. I've manually analyzed the last 50 filter hits; and while 17 of those were true positives, there were 27 false positives (along with 6 cases in which it wasn't as clear to me). As far as I can see, the majority of the FPs came from round-robin page moves, draftification following WP:AFD/WP:REFUND, and situations in which the page itself had existed for more than 180 days, but had only recently been moved to mainspace (and were therefore within the time limit for draftification):
Although I think a warning for true positives would be beneficial (for the same reason as Pppery), I'm wondering if there are any ways that the rate of FPs can be decreased before this filter is set as such. As things currently stand, I'm leaning oppose, due to the large proportion of warnings that would be given to editors encountering false positives. (Also, Courtesy ping: Bradv as the filter's author.)
All the best. —a smart kitten[meow] 16:39, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe we could reduce FPs from recently moved pages like this:
moved_from_age > 15552000 & moved_to_last_edit > 604800
- Note that I'm just using 1 week as a placeholder for when the article was last moved so it can be changed to whatever value is best. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 17:03, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
moved_to_last_edit_age
seems to benull
if the target page doesn't exist; see testwiki:Special:AbuseLog/102036. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:31, 21 April 2024 (UTC)- Maybe then it could be
moved_from_age > 15552000 & (moved_to_last_edit > 604800 || moved_to_last_edit == null)
but I'm not too sure about this. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 20:12, 21 April 2024 (UTC)- Ugh, brain fart. Now I get it. You're saying that if the move was recent, the leftover redirect is probably still there in draft space, so we can use its age? Yes, that's a great idea! Though now I'm confused as to why there's a
moved_to_last_edit_age
variable at all. If the redirect-to-be-overwritten has only one revision, that's just the same asmoved_to_age
. And if it has more than one revision, the move is just impossible. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 04:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC)- So then what variable would work better? I can't seem to find any suitable alternatives, but again you raise a point about the existence of the draft article preventing someone from moving back the page unless they are an admin or page mover (which isn't the majority of editors). So that wouldn't work because the move would be impossible. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 02:36, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Ugh, brain fart. Now I get it. You're saying that if the move was recent, the leftover redirect is probably still there in draft space, so we can use its age? Yes, that's a great idea! Though now I'm confused as to why there's a
- Maybe then it could be
- This is not convincing to me on principle. because the people doing false positives are experienced users that know what they're doing so will just click through the warning. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:39, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for all the digging! The first group of FPs all include a summary that contains either "robin", "swap", or "vacate". I don't know if that's a representative sample, but just excluding those summaries would produce few false negatives, unless someone deliberately uses them to avoid being logged by the filter, in which case they should at minimum receive a stern talking-to. The second group seems to come from one script (User:SD0001/RFUD-helper) which could be excluded. The others can, I suppose, just click past the warning. Compare 602 (hist · log), which warns every person leaving a CTOPS notice, appropriate or not. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:28, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- Paranoia would suggest only excluding edits with the first FP summaries if the requester holds page mover rights, and also creating a separate filter to log any exclusions. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:11, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- If they don't have pagemover rights, then they've left a redirect behind in mainspace. I don't know what fraction of admins at least do a spot check on R2 deletions, but if anyone frequently gets up to shenanigans like this, they'll be caught eventually. Filters (especially public filters) are never meant to stop every clever person from finding a workaround. With all that said, I still wouldn't object to a second, log-only, no-exceptions filter. The condition limit was doubled last year, and "move" filters are cheap. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Fair point regarding the others just being able to click past the warning - I suppose one of the things I'm concerned about is inadvertently building up banner blindness; though maybe the warning could be worded in such a way that it doesn't state that the editor is definitely trying to improperly draftify a page, just that the edit filter has detected that they might be. I'm in agreement with Pppery regarding only excluding the first set of edit summaries if the editor holds pagemover rights (in a similar way,
User:SD0001/RFUD-helper
could be set to exclude only if the editor is an admin), and I don't have a strong opinion either way regarding creating a separate filter to log exclusions. Annoyingly, I'm not sure if there's a way to filter out 'page is old but was only recently moved to mainspace' hits.As a side-note, I'm wondering if it's worth notifying Wikipedia talk:Draft of this proposal - would anyone have any objections if I did? All the best, —a smart kitten[meow] 09:05, 22 April 2024 (UTC)- I'm disinclined to set anything to warn an experienced editor. The only warnings from the edit filter I receive as an experienced editor are "you're about to place a CTOP" warnings, and those are a pain. They are jarring to my workflow, and they break user scripts. Also a 54% false positive rate is very high. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:41, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- That's the point. Trying to draftily old articles should be jarring. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:51, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- 54% false positives, and the potential to break scripts such as WP:PAGESWAP, still leaves me with concerns. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- To be fair, the round-robin moves I found in this filter's logs all appear to have been done manually (rather than using a script) - there appears to already be an exception in 1076 for moving to subpages of Draft:Move, which - as far as I'm aware - is what the scripts do. Personally speaking, I'd like to see if the false positive rate can be reduced before considering implementing a warning. All the best, —a smart kitten[meow] 13:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- 54% false positives, and the potential to break scripts such as WP:PAGESWAP, still leaves me with concerns. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- That's the point. Trying to draftily old articles should be jarring. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:51, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- I'm disinclined to set anything to warn an experienced editor. The only warnings from the edit filter I receive as an experienced editor are "you're about to place a CTOP" warnings, and those are a pain. They are jarring to my workflow, and they break user scripts. Also a 54% false positive rate is very high. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:41, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Paranoia would suggest only excluding edits with the first FP summaries if the requester holds page mover rights, and also creating a separate filter to log any exclusions. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:11, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Set filter 1283 to disallow[edit]
Required notification; see filter notes. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 18:28, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- PLEASE DO NOT DISCUSS PUBLICLY. Codename Noreste 🤔 La Suma 18:35, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- This seems fine, the hits are going crazy lately with true positives. EggRoll97 (talk) 18:51, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Filter 1304[edit]
Untested and will probably need some tweaks. Please do not discuss details here, but set to disallow if needed without asking me. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 18:28, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- Another reminder to not discuss private filters like this one publicly. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 23:31, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's going to need major tweaks before anyone even considers setting that one to disallow. Might as well consider that one a sort of emergency filter at the current state until it's far more built. EggRoll97 (talk) 02:54, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Filter 139[edit]
Please do not discuss here (of course), but if anyone with access could pop an explanation in the filter notes or via email as to why this is hidden, I would appreciate it. I don't currently see any reason for it to be so, but I may be missing something right in front of my eyes. EggRoll97 (talk) 16:51, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- It's because it's an LTA filter, pretty sure: Wikipedia:Edit_filter_noticeboard/Archive_10#139. – 2804:F14:80C8:4701:20D2:F905:5323:F028 (talk) 21:26, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- This is from before my time, but I guess I'd call it slightly higher-effort vandalism than "skbidbdidi gyattt sigma". I think people doing that sort of thing, even if they aren't technically LTAs, are the sort who would find the filter and maybe even understand it. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:47, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
{{Edit filter manager granted}} template[edit]
Just a standard notification, but feel free to make any additional changes if you want to this template. Codename Noreste 🤔 La Suma 02:34, 1 May 2024 (UTC)