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 1318 (new) — Actions: none; Flags: enabled,public; Pattern modified Last changed at 15:06, 28 July 2024 (UTC) Filter 707 — Flags: public; Pattern modified Last changed at 19:10, 27 July 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 331 enabled filters and 46 stale filters with no hits in the past 30 days. Filter condition use is ~1019, out of a maximum of 2000. (). See also the profiling data and edit filter graphs. Click here to start a new discussion thread

Set 491 to disallow

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 think 491 end ! To disallow 128.234.101.4 (talk) 10:23, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Wouldn't be against it, though warn seems to already be working fairly well. Basically, I see the technical accuracy, but not the necessity of setting it to disallow. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 20:36, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I would support disallow in this case, as it seems to be doing its job pretty well and we want this junk out of our articles. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 01:15, 6 July 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 filter helper for Codename Noreste (third nomination)

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)}

The earliest closure has started. (refresh)

Hello, everyone. This has been a few months after my failed nomination back in February, but after I have addressed your concerns seriously, I am requesting the edit filter helper right again. But this time, I now intend to assist with writing filters using my basic knowledge of regular expressions.

I have proposed additions to filter 936 (hist · log) (implemented by Suffusion of Yellow via email), and I have written and requested updates on 1292 (hist · log) (a global filter that tracks 1292's target was implemented on Meta as 344 (Meta admins only)) and 1308 (hist · log) (both filters are maintained by Ingenuity except the global filter, in which that global filter is maintained by SHB2000 on Meta), and 1313 (hist · log). Given these filters' sensitive detection strategies, I do not intend to discuss their details on public or outside of the edit filter mailing list.

With respect to account security and nonpublic information, I use a strong password and have 2FA enabled on my main account, and I have signed the confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information (verify).

Thank you for your consideration. Codename Noreste 🤔 Talk 03:48, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

• Strong support – I've worked with Codename Noreste pretty much ever since I became an admin on Meta and his work on edit filters is priceless. He's also very proactive on maintenance, which is critical for EFH. --SHB2000 (talk) 04:13, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support I have seen their impressive work in this area and had conversations with them on Discord, where they showed strong regex skills. I trust them with EFH. – DreamRimmer (talk) 07:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support Seems fine, and I've seen them around working with filters a lot. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 15:27, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support - Seems to be a good fit for this role. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 22:31, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support. Happy to see this. I've already been sharing a few private filters with Codename Noreste, and fully trust him with this right. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:42, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
• The earliest closure has started. Would an admin grant the right? – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 04:53, 13 July 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 filter 53

I'm just sending an FYI that one of my updates to this filter accidentally added a | at the very end of one of the string variables (it causes ALL edits to be flagged as a hit). It was caught and fixed two minutes later. Any false positive notifications regarding this filter can be closed as 'resolved'. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:35, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

And that, fellow users, is why EFMs are recommended to test their updates thoroughly before implementing said updates to any filter. There is the test interface in which admins, edit filter helpers and managers can access, or there's User:Suffusion of Yellow/batchtest-plus but you still need the same permissions to access that interface, just so that you can also use that script. Codename Noreste 🤔 Talk 16:55, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps if it weren't for my sudden curiosity about such edit filters, this could have gone unnoticed.102.159.221.21 (talk) 04:50, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

EFH nomination for PharyngealImplosive7 (second nomination)

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.

---

PharyngealImplosive7 (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)}

Link to my previous nomination (withdrawn).

Pinging the admin who closed the last nomination: @0xDeadbeef.

The earliest closure has started. (refresh)

Hello everyone. Back in February, I had my last self-nom for EFH. I was relatively new in general, and even newer to the edit filter space. As I've reflected on that failed nomination, I've tried to take in to account your feedback and I think that now I have a much more solid nomination.

First of all, I have made about ~1100 edits to WP:EFFPR, and have tried to be as cautious as possible while clerking all reports, private and not. (as can be seen on xtools: [1]). I also have made numerous contributions to filters, such as helping to create the private filter 1313 (hist · log) (courtesy ping to @Codename Noreste to our conversation over email, before he sent the code we made together to the mailing list for further improvements), as well as the public filter 1298 (hist · log). I also helped create some regex for the private filter 1161 (hist · log) (to enforce WP:DADASAHEB). I've also made quite a few minor improvements to filters 54 (hist · log), 614 (hist · log), and a few others, but they all help catch unwanted edits that wouldn't have been otherwise. I believe that these examples can show that I have enough experience in regex that I can help author filters on this wiki.

I know the responsibility of this user right and know the sensitivity of private filters. As a result, if I gain this permission, I will only discuss information about private filters on the mailing list. I also care a lot about security, and although I don't have 2FA enabled, I do have a strong password, so I think that is highly unlikely that my account will be compromised. I also have signed the access to nonpublic information agreement (verify).

I thank everyone for their participation and feedback last time, as it helped me get a better sense for the gravity of this permission. Thank you in advance. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 23:40, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Support

• Support as last time, trusted and competent editor. – DreamRimmer (talk) 15:39, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
• No objections here unlike last time, and you would be a good fit for this high-trust role. Codename Noreste 🤔 Talk 16:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

• Oppose I've read over your work, but I'm also not really seeing the need either. Your hit on the mailing list wasn't bad, but ultimately the filter Codename Noreste proposed was fleshed out, while your proposal (at least as seen in the mailing list) was a single line of regex. At the current time, I'm not seeing the need. I wasn't sure whether I should chime in, but frankly 0xDeadbeef's neutral has swayed me away enough from neutrality to chime in here. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 21:00, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

  I understand your point of view. If I may, could I send you an email with some RegEx showing a more concrete understanding? It's a meta LTA filter that I added more sophisticated lines of code. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 21:47, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

  And its sent. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 21:48, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

  In the interest of transparency, I disclose on-wiki that I have received your email, which contains the contents described in the above comment, and have read such email. As for my response, since it doesn't contain any sensitive information, that filter is a meta-wiki filter, and doesn't necessarily show work towards enwiki's filters. I'm sure it would be great if you were running for Meta adminship, or GAFH, but I should have been clearer. I was moreso referring to your work with edit filters on enwiki, not necessarily on Meta. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 03:24, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Neutral

• Not seeing the need so far, sadly. Some concrete examples of substantial involvement with regex/edit filter code would help my confidence, but the single hit in the mailing list doesn't say much. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 12:40, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

  Just sent you an email about I private filter I'm in the process of creating with the help of Codename Noreste. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 17:14, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

  Mind if you forward it to my email as well? Codename Noreste 🤔 Talk 18:21, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

  It is the same meta filter we worked on yesterday. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 18:29, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

  Oh, never mind; it was already implemented on Meta. I also requested access to join the private filter mailing list, awaiting subscription approval. Codename Noreste 🤔 Talk 18:31, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

  Just curious and also trying to be as vague as possible, but was it implemented with or without my changes? – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 19:38, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

  With. Codename Noreste 🤔 Talk 20:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

• Questions: PharyngealImplosive7, aside from 1313, I have a couple of questions for you:

1. Have you sent private filter regex updates to the mailing list or to an EFM?
2. Do you intend to create a private filter that you can send to an EFM or to the mailing list?

If so, please explain them in a non-beansy manner. Thank you. Codename Noreste 🤔 Talk 00:01, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

1. No. I have not besides for 1313. I only helped create thee other private filter I worked on, 1161. However, I do plan to do so in the future.

2. Yes in fact! I have a few ideas kicking around in my head, but my most developed one is for BBB. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 00:20, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

There are already some filters trying to track what you said in number 2, and that's all what I'm allowed to say in public. Codename Noreste 🤔 Talk 16:53, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Ok thanks for letting me know. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 17:04, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

• If you're willing to share, is there any specific reason you don't have 2FA enabled? While it's not a requirement for EFH (and isn't a formal requirement outside of interface admins), I'm curious to know if there's a reason, or if it's just that you haven't necessarily turned it on (I'm aware it's not available unless a steward activates the global group). EggRoll97 ^(talk) 18:05, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah. I just haven't turned it on, because I haven't asked a steward yet to enable it. I don't really have a specific reason besides that I haven't done it yet, though if I get sesnitive perms like this one, I'll think about enabling it. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 18:17, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

• I am counting at least two supports, one neutral and one objection -- would an uninvolved administrator close this discussion please? Codename Noreste 🤔 Talk 16:06, 16 July 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.

Page protection

I protected Wikipedia:Edit filter/False positives/Reports for 1 day 3 hours due to persistent vandalism from multiple accounts. Ohnoitsjamie and other administrators, please feel free to lift the protection earlier at your discretion. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 03:26, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Good protection, but it looks like these diffs (Special:Diff/1233248166, Special:Diff/1233232866, Special:Diff/1233232682, and others with more than 100,000 text bytes added) will need to be revision-deleted because of disruptive Zalgo text. Codename Noreste 🤔 Talk 03:46, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Done. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 04:40, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Set filter 707 to disallow?

707 (hist · log) (EFFPR disruption, public)

Per the recent hits, it's working great, and we need to stop this type of disruption on that page. Also, check that filter's notes. Codename Noreste 🤔 Talk 06:45, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

No objections, though probably best to put in a custom edit notice to re-target to the edit filter noticeboard instead since it targets the EFFPR page, something like:

This perhaps? EggRoll97 ^(talk) 21:16, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

If we plan to use your proposed disallow message, it should be made on MediaWiki:Abusefilter-disallowed-EFFPR by an admin; alternatively, we could use the default disallow message, but users would click on the Report error button because there's a button to press, and would lead to pointless reports of people begging for help on WP:EFFPR. Also, I believe the word disruption is probably more accurate than vandalism, since filters 768 and 984 use the former word, but not 707. Codename Noreste 🤔 Talk 21:34, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Here's the new disallow message code if anyone's interested:

{{edit filter warning
| action   = disallow
| text     = <div style="text-align: center;">An automated filter has identified this edit as potentially unconstructive. Please be aware that [[Wikipedia:Vandalism|vandalism]] will result in [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|revocation of your editing privileges]]. If this edit was disallowed in error, please make a new section on the same page you were editing.</div>
| fplink   = no
}}

Codename Noreste 🤔 Talk 21:36, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Based on the IP's comments below, we could simply direct to leave a new section on the false positives page, but without the report error button featured in the default disallow message, making the message, An automated filter has identified this edit as potentially unconstructive. Please be aware that vandalism may result in revocation of your editing privileges. If this edit was disallowed in error, please make a new section on the same page you were editing. I don't think there really needs to be a report error button since the filter is very narrowly targeted and shouldn't have any false positives. Also, Codename Noreste, I've BOLDly changed the filter description to "disruption" instead. Doesn't seem like that big of a deal whether it's referred to as vandalism or disruption, but who knows. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 03:00, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to modify the message code I posted and the proposed disallow message to reflect what you said, and about changing from vandalism to disruption, I'm not sure how to describe 707 in public, but it catches more than just vandalism obviously. Codename Noreste 🤔 Talk 03:03, 26 July 2024 (UTC) (I modified it anyway) -- Codename Noreste

Obviously private, but is reporting false positives about this at EFFPR even a problem? Is it actually going to set off the filter too? – 2804:F1...E9:11BA (talk) 00:25, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Reporting false positives will not trigger the filter. Codename Noreste 🤔 Talk 00:30, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I think If this edit was disallowed in error, please leave a message on the edit filter noticeboard should point to WP:EFFPR, not EFN. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:05, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I modified the message to reflect this, but I took out the big warning thing. Codename Noreste 🤔 Talk 03:11, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that looks good. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 03:12, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Minor change, but "may be blocked" sounds a little soft, so I'm modifying the notice to say "will" instead of "may". – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 02:55, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done MediaWiki page creation requested, and I'll toggle the disallow as soon as an admin makes the page. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 15:34, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I've created the page. I have two observations. First, does this need to be private? I'm not aware of any private-type issues, but I haven't looked far. Second, there's a boolean condition which is 'true and true or true'. The precedence is probably written up somewhere, but I find non-parenthesised conditions like this highly confusing and subject to errors. Maybe clarify the intention? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:30, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

@Zzuuzz: I'm actually not sure if it needs to be private. It was private on the initial iteration, so I didn't change the visibility when re-enabling. No objections to publicizing, though. As for the boolean condition, it seems to be parenthesized, but I woke up fairly early today so I'm not sure if I'm looking in the same place that you are. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 16:46, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I think we're looking at the same thing, but I probably wasn't clear. Let's have an example: (year == 2024 and month == 7 or day = "Saturday"). It's difficult to know what this means. Maybe the year needs to be 2024, or it can be any Saturday? The documentation says not. In fact I'll quote the documentation: A & B | C is equivalent to (A & B) | C, not to A & (B | C). In particular, both false & true | true and false & false | true evaluates to true. Complicated huh. Compare to: ((year == 2024 and month == 7) or day == "Saturday") or perhaps (year == 2024 and (month == 7 or day == "Saturday")) (and it can get really complicated when people start adding more conditions). -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:31, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Always use parentheses with boolean algebra. For readability. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:50, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I've even confused myself above. It can be any Saturday. It certainly is one today.. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:03, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

What lines of filter 707 was this starting the boolean problem? Codename Noreste 🤔 Talk 18:18, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

@Zzuuzz: Assuming you're referring to lines 15-19 (I've now unhidden the filter, because it shouldn't be catching much more than drive-by vandals), I think the fix would just be (new_size < 300 & old_size > 300 & edit_delta < -250) &. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 18:34, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I have no objections to 707 being public, but after testing the new code, this doesn't seem to catch the blanking disruption, rather just header removal disruption. Also pinging PharyngealImplosive7 since 707 is already unhidden. Codename Noreste 🤔 Talk 18:39, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I think that we should make a modification to this filter. It's working great so far except in one place, when users remove their own false positive report (see this catch for example). The user was just removing their own report. Maybe we could add this condition to new_size < 300 & old_size > 300 | edit_delta < -250:

!(removed_lines irlike "\={2}\s*" +  user_unnamed_ip + "\={2}\s*") & 
!(removed_lines irlike "\={2}\s*" +  user_name + "\={2}\s*")

to fix this (which should exclude people from removing their own reports). – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 19:05, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Do you have any other non-variable condition that checks for IP addresses other than user_unnamed_ip? Codename Noreste 🤔 Talk 20:15, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

No, I don't. If anyone else does I am open to suggestions. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 21:28, 27 July 2024 (UTC)