Jump to content

Wikipedia:Edit filter noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:EF/N)
"WP:EFN" redirects here. For information on the {{efn}} template, see WP:EXPLNOTE.
    Welcome to the edit filter noticeboard
    Shortcuts
    Filter 174 — Pattern modified
    Last changed at 04:36, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

    Filter 707 — Actions: disallow

    Last changed at 17:53, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

    Filter 1306 — Flags: disabled

    Last changed at 07:43, 28 August 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 332 enabled filters and 45 stale filters with no hits in the past 30 days. Filter condition use is ~1015, out of a maximum of 2000. (Purge). See also the profiling data and edit filter graphs.

    Click here to start a new discussion thread


    1297: is "fake[ ]news" a potential mixed-use word?

    [edit]

    I think I mostly understand what the filter's useful for—but I'm not sure whether this would be useful, borderline, or not useful. Thanks for the patience in advance. Remsense ‥ 论 03:41, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This is far too common in actual constructive revisions to put into the filter. There are so many possible uses for it that the filter would probably be tripping far too often to be effective. EggRoll97 (talk) 23:53, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Naturally. I guess I'm just unduly interested in the filter system for some reason—is there an acquired rule of thumb for how many false positives is too many? I would imagine it's extremely low, and quantifying it strictly would be asinine, but naturally thinking we stopped 5 constructive contributions would sting, even if we prevented thousands of routine vandals. Remsense ‥ 论 00:53, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not so much the amount of false positives here, but the common usage. It's used in news reports, legitimate article content, and so much more. For example, see the full fifteen mentions of fake news on Presidency of Donald Trump, plus Fake news and similar articles. At the same time, you do have a valid point, it's a fairly mixed-use word, though probably for the best if we don't add that without strong evidence that it's being misused. I don't think I've seen much that gets past RecentChanges, personally. EggRoll97 (talk) 02:30, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Short form versions of various EFFP parameters?

    [edit]
    (non-admin closure)  Done I've WP:BOLDly implemented this suggestion since it seems like no one has any objections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PharyngealImplosive7 (talk • contribs)

    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.

    I've noticed that {{EFFP|pagenameadded}}, {{EFFP|pagenamefixed}}, and {{EFFP|reportfixed}} have no short versions. May I suggest that we add short versions of these parameters of {{EFFP}} just so that they are easier to type out? For example, we could use "EFFP|pna" for pagenameadded, "EFFP|pnf" for pagenamefixed and "EFFP|rf" for reportfixed. Let me know what you all think. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 21:46, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    For what it's worth, it doesn't seem like any of these would affect MajavahBot even with the note saying that the bot uses them - seems pretty easy to implement too. If no one else comments here I'd recommend just being bold and adding them (can even test in the /sandbox). – 2804:F1...E1:EACF (talk) 03:38, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    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 174

    [edit]

    Why is filter 174 only set to warn & tag? And why does it only apply to non-autoconfirmed users? I see a lot of removals by autoconfirmed users that have to be repeatedly reverted. I don't see any disadvantage to disallowing removal by all non-extended-confirmed users. Anyone with less than 500 edits generally isn't experienced enough to be closing XfD discussions. C F A 💬 18:32, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I imagine benefit of the doubt, and reversion of vandalism? Best that it apply to as few people as possible, unless you're seeing specific examples of autoconfirmed users needing to be caught by this. EggRoll97 (talk) 06:03, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Might be worth to run a test filter for autonfirmed users for a while to see if it should be added to the filter. Nobody (talk) 06:22, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think without actual disruption occurring, best not to. EggRoll97 (talk) 15:47, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I see autoconfirmed users removing AfD tags from their own articles all the time in my work at NPP. In fact, it's probably more common than non-autoconfirmed editors doing so because article creations by non-autoconfirmed editors have to go through AfC (and thus are much less likely to be nominated for deletion). In the rare case that someone maliciously adds an AfD tag (without starting a discussion), it will just be removed by an extended-confirmed editor. These rare cases are tracked at WP:NPPEASY and fixed within a few hours. If an editor maliciously starts a deletion discussion, it will be speedily kept by an AFD closer (who are always extended-confirmed). The vast, vast majority of AFD tag removals by non-extended-confirmed editors are disruptive. Even if the filter isn't set to disallow, it should at least log removals by autoconfirmed editors so people can track them. C F A 💬 02:27, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This filter will now catch autoconfirmed users as well. Extended-confirmed editors are exempt now. I will so far decline to switch it to disallow unless there is consensus to do so, though. EggRoll97 (talk) 04:36, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. C F A 💬 21:15, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @EggRoll97: Should the name be changed?
    To "Non-extendedconfirmed user removing XfD template", perhaps? – 2804:F14:80E2:E301:70E6:DA2D:5A4C:A92D (talk) 22:41, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    New user generally seems to still apply to the intended use-case. Getting autoconfirmed is extraordinarily easy, after all. EggRoll97 (talk) 01:31, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Set filter 707 to disallow? (round 2)

    [edit]
     Done EggRoll97 (talk) 17:52, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    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.

    This is a continued discussion from Wikipedia:Edit filter noticeboard/Archive 13#Set filter 707 to disallow?.

    We've made the message for the filter, and based on the hits, it's working as it should be (logging all drive-by vandals disrupting EFFPR). Does anyone object if we actually set the filter to disallow? Codename Noreste 🤔 Talk 01:41, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    No objections from me, filter doesn't seem to have any FPs, I think it can be safely set to disallow. Lordseriouspig 09:56, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support if bot and sysop also get put in the user groups. Nobody (talk) 11:15, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe confirmed user rights are also implied in the administrator and bot user groups, FYI. Codename Noreste 🤔 Talk 14:18, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just tested it, looks like you're right. TY Nobody (talk) 14:34, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 14:35, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    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 filter helper

    [edit]
    WP:SNOW consensus against granting EFH. Additionally, I am interpreting this edit changing the earliest closure to the past by NYC Guru as consenting to an early assessment of consensus. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:34, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    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.

    There are 4 days, 16 hours, 25 minutes and 33 seconds until Earliest closure. (refresh)

    NYC Guru (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)

    I'm requesting permission which will allow me explain false positives tripped by private edit filters at Wikipedia:Edit filter/False positives. NYC Guru (talk) 08:55, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @NYC Guru Gonna be frank with you, that's not happening. You've had no involvement with edit filters since you started editing, which fails WP:EFHCRITERIA. Nobody (talk) 09:24, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You might want to.. actually get yourself involved? 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 09:40, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    if it means being an admin on another project then it's certainly not happening but yes i would like to "get involved". NYC Guru (talk) 10:32, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not seeing your username on the last 500 edits to WP:EFFPR.. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 10:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose per my comments above since this is turning into an actual discussion somehow 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 01:33, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, assuming I did have edits I an not an admin on any wikiproject so this would fail anyway, but I'll try to get involved as I'd like to volunteer beyone stub sorting and WP:NPP. Didn't think this was an-RFA style discussion, though but I'll let it run it's course. NYC Guru (talk) 01:48, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The standard applied to EFH candidates has often exceeded RfA. EFH needs serious trust as it contains private information. It is, in my opinion, impossible to get EFH without any involvement in the area first. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 02:02, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The standard applied to EFH candidates has often exceeded RfA. I'm not sure about that. RFA is notoriously stressful and toxic. And RFA has hundreds more participants. But I definitely agree that EFH isn't just handed out to anyone. For someone that doesn't have a valid need-to-know such as an SPI clerk, it requires a blend of experience at WP:EFFPR and community trust. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:11, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Novem Linguae:To be fair I'll wait a day given I didn't expect all these comments. Too bad I didn't get the courtesy when I WP:BOLDly tried an RFA back in January 2023. NYC Guru (talk) 03:45, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, this point has been said here before and it might not be a fair comparison. But I think there have been people have expressed here that they might oppose an EFH candidate one that they do not necessarily oppose/could support in an RfA. Even though having sysop gives you what an EFH would have anyways. (I think a layer to this is that some people will only support EFH if they will support EFM as well) 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 11:21, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see a demonstrated need for this, and there's also a lack of activity on any related noticeboards. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 15:24, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, I strongly agree with what everyone says below; the edit filter helper and manager permissions both require a high level of trust (comparable to that of an administrator). In addition, some private filters' logs often contain personal information such as emails and phone numbers. Codename Noreste 🤔 Talk 16:44, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: I've added the countdown and links, since this technically does count as a valid self-nomination and the user does meet the technical requirements. EggRoll97 (talk) 18:25, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose Clearly not ready, and I think this probably is a WP:NOTNOW situation, but I don't see any harm in letting it run if the user really wants it to run. EggRoll97 (talk) 18:25, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose No edits to WP:EFFPR? Ternera (talk) 21:12, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose: Per everyone else. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 22:59, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose for now. If you don't mind, I'd suggest withdrawing to save the community some time. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:10, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment @NYC Guru: you can't just change the earliest closure date. The discussion is required to run for 7 days at minimum if you need it to run its course. A withdrawal would be best, I guess I could also see SNOW if someone else decides to. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 11:21, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    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.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Edit_filter_noticeboard&oldid=1244089870"