edit Filter Noticeboard

Filter 54 — Flags: public; Pattern modified

    Welcome to the edit filter noticeboard
    Filter 614 — Pattern modified
      Last changed at 14:54, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

      Last changed at 11:42, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

    Filter 1170 — Pattern modified

      Last changed at 10:26, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

    Filter 1285 — Actions: disallow

      Last changed at 21:00, 21 March 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.



    Does the private edit filter wiki exist?

    I was looking through the archives of this page and I found a discussion about an edit filter private wiki (see [1]: the discussion is quite interesting). While I know that I wouldn't be able to participate, did this wiki ever happen, or did we just stick with the mailing list, because it seems that the archived discussion never reached a conclusion? – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 21:01, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

      I think we're stuck to the mailing list for now, and we're gonna have to restrict it to admins, EFHs and EFMs for security purposes. So it looks like we (both) cannot join until we have the EFH role at the very least. – 64andtim (talk) 21:23, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
        I know, but I was just curious about its existence. I know that we both can't get it yet, but if one of us gets EFH at some point, we could be in it, and it could be useful anyhow. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 23:40, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
      I don't see anything that looks like "edit" or "filter" on the private wiki list. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:26, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
        I didn't know that there was a place you could see all private wikimedia wikis. That answers my question. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 01:37, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
      This does not exist. I'd be in favor of such a thing, but given the overwhelmingly negative reaction to this similar proposal, it looks like it would be an uphill battle to get it created. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 02:42, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
        It might still be a good idea to try, as others have pointed out before: the mailing list is generally inactive, and organization might be easier on a private wiki. It seems to me that it would be a good idea, even though I can't join. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 03:27, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
          Is the mailing list inactive though? It's had 4 threads (10 messages) in the last month. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:15, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
            It isn't possible for me to know whether it is active currently (I'm not in it nor can I be in it even if I wanted to) but people in the previous thread said it was generally inactive. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 04:27, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
            Not that it is inactive, but it is just hard to track. There are requests, concerns, and issues that can go unanswered for months, which would be much better suited if we had an actual ticket system, which the private wiki could help with. (at least gives you an idea of what issues were resolved and what were not)
            In terms of personal preference, we are already used to the threaded discussion format here on Wiki English. We don't use mailing lists to handle WP:EFFPR requests do we? Making it a wiki makes it a better tier of communication.
            The need is clear. EFMs/EFHs/Admins need a way to communicate about LTAs, vandals, and contents of private edit filters. This is currently done through a non-ideal form of communication (mailing list, private messages, IRC, etc.) that doesn't get the job done as efficient as a private wiki. Sending an email to a mailing list requires considerable effort, and creates friction that potentially ward off seemingly trivial/simple questions that can otherwise turn into a useful discussion.
            Moving the activity on a mailing list to a private wiki is just better for effectiveness in handling matters related to private filters and LTAs. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 15:24, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
              Could a discord server also work? I know it's limited what you can do there, but probably easier to setup then a wiki. Nobody (talk) 15:35, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
                But this would be more than a struggle for us to propose this on Meta, and have our time wasted if most of that community simply rejects that proposal.
                Also, what about the thing that you send an email to the edit filters mailing list and you have to wait maybe days or months until your request gets accepted. Maybe we need a better way to "accept" emails from non-list/wiki members if their requests are related to creations of/additions to private or LTA filters. – 64andtim (talk) 16:45, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
                  Honestly, this proposal has its pros and cons. However, it seems to me that most people who actively deal with edit filters here are onboard. If we're ready, I would be ok with supporting a proposal for a private edit filter wiki on meta. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 21:39, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
              I agree it is hard to track. I am not going to commit to writing an RfC for this yet. But if no one does in the next week or so I'll try to. Haven't written an RfC before. Philipnelson99 (talk) 15:02, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
        Huh. Maybe I spoke too soon when I said "uphill battle". There apparently is a private wiki for Italian admins, at https://sysop-it.wikipedia.org. This was created with minimal fuss at phab:T256545 after it:Wikipedia:Bar/Discussioni/Coordinamento delle informazioni sui vandalismi Was that ever even discussed on meta? Are we allowed to create a private wiki if there's only local consensus? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:31, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
          No idea if we have to discuss on meta first, but it seems unlikely that we have to discuss if that sysop wiki could form without any discussion. If that's the case, I would be all for a phab ticket. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 20:57, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
            We'd definitely need local consensus for creating such a private wiki. Anyone willing to draft a Rfc? I can maybe help edit. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 05:37, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
              I'm too tired to draft a request for comment because of all of my college studies, but I will edit it too first thing in the morning. – 64andtim (talk) 05:52, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
                I also have a bunch of work to do and haven't ever made or commented on an rfc so I'm not the best choice either. It's also late in the night already in my timezone. I'm happy to comment on an rfc though in the morning. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 05:59, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
      I actually don't know how much use a private edit filter wiki would be. Mailing lists aren't particularly friendly, but at least they go to an inbox that (presumably) the person otherwise monitors. A separate wiki might get some initial activity due to novelty, but I suspect it'd die out? In part because the community of EFM/EFHs used to be quite small (I'm not sure about now?). That said, I suppose it'd make discussing filters easier for WP:BEANS reasons. Right now, we'd have to just email each other. A ticketing system might be useful, but sounds like a private phab board serves better at that than a wiki. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:07, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
        A private phab broad would only be useful for edit filters, and it doesn't cover the discussion aspect well. (since they have different tickets with different threads, while a wiki can centralize discussion under a single page) Suffusion of Yellow also mentioned the idea of expanding it to discussion about LTAs per WP:DENY and WP:BEANS at the last discussion. A wiki could have more benefits than a phab broad. I suspect it'd die out? Maybe, or maybe not. I think it would be good if we can try. If people enable emails from notifications on the private wiki it could be remain active. (We can do something like {{@EFMs}} for time-sensitive issues) 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 11:03, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

    Set filter 1285 to disallow?

    • 1285 (hist · log) ("Removal of short description", public)

    See WP:EFR#Identify removal of short description, courtesy ping Uhai.

    Very low FP rate. While this might seem like a trivial thing; it's almost always accompanied by something worse. This is usually either just partial blanking that slips past the other filters, or users who have something to say, click the first available edit link at the top so they can share it with us, and remove anything that they don't understand. When reviewing, remember to view the log with saved changes only to see the new edits we'll be disallowing; this filter overlaps quite a bit with some blanking filters. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:22, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

      In addition, see Special:AbuseLog/36985288; an IP address has removed the last two brackets of the SD template. It turns out they were trying to add "and YouTuber" but they didn’t realize that can break the short description template.
      Also, Special:AbuseLog/36984552 recently catched an IP address adding something non-constructive in lieu of the template. – 64andtim (talk) 20:37, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
    • Support as requester. Filter has a very low rate of false positives thanks to iteration by Suffusion of Yellow. Template:Short description's typical placement at the very top of article wikitext results in it being a common target for vandalism and disruption of the template can serve as an indicator of unconstructive edits that are not caught by other filters. Setting it to disallow would reduce the workload of recent changes patrollers and avoid the rarer cases of vandalism being missed altogether. Uhai (talk) 07:49, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
      I'd suggest switching to a warning first and seeing the extent to which that resolves the issues --DannyS712 (talk) 19:24, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
    • I'd support setting it to disallow (or warning, if preferred). Low FPs and catching a lot of nonsense. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:49, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
    • I also will support. Disallow seems pretty good to me but we could try warn or warn+tag first to see if that resolves the issue. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 21:27, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
    • In addition to what I said above, since those log entries are "accompanied with something worse", I support setting this to disallow. – 64andtim (talk) 14:05, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
    • Oppose disallow for one reason. If someone adds a SD by accident and then tries to remove it, it wouldn't work. (Example) (Which I don't think can be fixed using the filter). But I support warning. Nobody (talk) 15:09, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
        Even if they add it by accident, they should change it to something appropriate as the template shouldn't be removed once it's added to a page per Wiki: Short description: "all mainspace articles should have a short description". The example you linked is actually perfect for something that should have been disallowed as it was a suitable short description for the page. Furthermore, if the edit summary contains revert/rv/undid (like if they click the "undo" button) then the edit will be allowed to go through. Uhai (talk) 15:18, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
          Right, so maybe we should include some instructions, like if you wanted to leave an intentionally blank description, use {{short description|none}}? 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 15:48, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
            @0xDeadbeef The warning message above already contains these instructions. Uhai (talk) 16:19, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
              I can't read. (I've said this too many times) 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 16:20, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
          I was more thinking along the lines of "They're not sure what the right description is, based on our standards, so they're trying to leave it empty for someone who does." Nobody (talk) 16:20, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
            It's a fair point but I'm not sure the situation where a non-confirmed, good faith editor accidentally adds the short description template and then tries to remove it (without undoing) is common enough to warrant concern over the filter disallowing. In the absolute worst case scenario, they could follow the link in the warning message to report to EFFP and have a patroller there remove the template from the page for them. Uhai (talk) 17:38, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
              So set to disallow and see how many reports come in? Sounds good. Nobody (talk) 18:44, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
                @1AmNobody24 Not sure if this was meant to come across as sarcastic but I can say that I went through 1500 hits and didn't see a single instance where the removal was constructive. Even the example you linked I would not consider a false positive as the user should not have removed the short description and I have since added it back. It's unclear why they did this—maybe they thought removing it was the same as it being "none", which the warning message would clarify. Setting the filter to warn may stop some vandals, sure, but plenty just ignore or don't see the warning messages and click "publish" again. Often even good faith editors miss seeing the message and just think that they missed clicking the publish button or something.
                I would never advocate for a filter being set to disallow as a test to see the volume of reports. Most disallow filters will have some number of false positives and I believe the benefits of this filter being set to disallow would greatly outweigh the harm from false positives and that the volume of false positives and non-frivolous false positive reports should be very low. Uhai (talk) 19:16, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
                  Not sarcastic at all. Just wanted to know how this type of Situation would be handled. Nobody (talk) 19:26, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

    edit Filter Noticeboard  Done Set to disallow with the standard message, no prejudice against changing it back. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 21:01, 21 March 2024 (UTC).

      For now, until a custom disallow message is made, the generic disallow (and somewhat bitey) message is currently being used. Codename Noreste 🤔 talk 00:47, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

    Reactivated 1286

    See Wikipedia:Edit_filter_noticeboard/Archive_12#Rule_1286:_German_company_slander.

    I reactivated the rule now, because the person is back, see e.g. [2]. @64andtim, thanks for hint. -- seth (talk) 23:23, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

      In addition, with my suggestion, I've asked them to de-specify the filter's name. Thank you. – 64andtim (talk) 00:37, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

    Error

    Elmira High School, Elmira, OR. Notable Alumni: Paddi Moyer, artisan, has several websites. She is legitimate. There’s no possible way to add her name and it is impossible to contact any of you. 50.45.245.19 (talk) 09:45, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

      In order for her to be accepted as notable for the Notable alumni section, she needs to have a Wikipedia article. Nobody (talk) 09:49, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

    No mention of the new guitar player Caleb Tucker 2600:1700:A170:3AF0:B0AE:7D02:4851:7C87 (talk) 23:38, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

      Please read WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC notability guidelines. Having "several websites" does not address notability criteria. OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:51, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

    /Requests' archive

    As can be seen from the last 400 edits at Wiki: Edit filter/Requested, the bot has, since 9 September 2023‎, been archiving everything into Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested/Archive 4 - this appears to be because of by @EEng.
    Should something be done about that? There are 21 archives.
    Note that I'm posting this here because the talk page for /Requests redirects here. – 2804:F14:809E:DF01:1968:B0BD:7883:4C14 (talk) 22:41, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

      All I did was increase the max size of the archive pages. Why that caused it to jump to Archive 4 is beyond me. EEng 04:34, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
        Cluebot has its |numberstart= set to 4 (it doesn't use a counter system like {{User:MiszaBot/config}}, rather I think it figures out where it should archive every time), and since the archive size was increased enough to allow it to archive to the 4th archive, it did. Probably worth moving everything that ended up in 4 to 21 or 22 and upping numberstart. Aidan9382 (talk) 06:53, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

    Edit filter helper nomination for 1AmNobody24

    1AmNobody24 (t · th ·· 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 · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)

    The earliest closure has started. (refresh)

    For those of you that do not know him, 1AmNobody24 has been quite an active patroller of EFFPR spanning a little more than 700 edits in the past few months, and he would be a great asset to the edit filter team in order to review false positives that involve private filters, and to assist with improving and creating private filters. Some of his suggestions include Wikipedia:Edit filter noticeboard/Archive 12#Filter 1112, and Special:Permalink/1211462999#Improving Filter 1045.

    Outside of edit filters, he does a great job of reverting obvious vandalism and spam, has decent UAA, AFC, CSD and SPI logs, fixes references (including but not limited to bare URLs, CS1 errors), adds wikilinks, and has signed the confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information per this diff on Meta.

    Thank you for your consideration in whether or not you want to support him. Codename Noreste 🤔 talk 17:00, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

    Candidate, please indicate acceptance of this nomination here: I accept this nomination. Nobody (talk) 17:16, 25 March 2024 (UTC)


    • Support as the nominator. Codename Noreste 🤔 talk 17:00, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
    • Support: Trusted user who has a clear need. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 18:05, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
    • Oppose Weak support: I'm slightly concerned by this, as non-EFH/EFM/sysop should not generally be actioning reports involving private filters, regardless of how obvious the result may be. The key problem is that the person responding doesn't have access to all relevant logs, nor access to the necessary filters to check the report in full. A similar idea applies to this one. While I think they could be responsible with EFH, I'm not a fan of granting it to someone who recently (within 2 months and even 1 month) has shown to be actioning reports as described. EggRoll97 (talk) 21:50, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
        @EggRoll97 I agree that most private filter hits should not be actioned by non-EFH/EFM, but those two reports I can easily explain why I responded. The first one one triggered the Rapid disruption private filter and filters 61 and 636 in the same attempt. When looking at the public filters hits, one can see the obvious reason why that attempt is disruptive. The second report is also for an attempt thar hit both a private and a public filter. By looking at the public hit, one can easily see what part got hit for looking like a email. These were both obvious cases of disruptive attempts and even if I don't see the private filters it's obvious that the hits weren't false positives. Nobody (talk) 05:27, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
          I don't necessarily agree with that line of thought, but I find myself leaning neutrally. EggRoll97 (talk) 20:44, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
    • Support: They have demonstrated the need, and I trust them with EFH.– DreamRimmer (talk) 13:06, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
    • Support has continuous involvement with filters with technical contributions. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 13:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
    • The earliest closure has started. Would someone mind granting the perm as it seems that consensus agrees to grant? – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 17:39, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
    • edit Filter Noticeboard  Comment: WP:EFH only talks about requesting the right for yourself, nothing about nominating others. This feels like it misses the candidate's own statement on why they want the right (even if it's obvious). That said, this reads like it was made using a template, so is this just undocumented? (Also the confidentiality agreement diff link is broken, as I've mentioned, please fix that)2804:F1...01:18F4 (talk) 21:02, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
        There is a tradition of nominating others, even if it isn't written down on the guidelines. About the statement on why they want the right, I don't really know if it is needed in this case but it could be. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 21:26, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
          I'll also concur that it doesn't matter too much if they nominate themselves, so long as they're available to answer questions from others. Ultimately the test that is applied is whether the candidate can be trusted, and while self-nominations are fully acceptable, some also like the reassurance that comes from a nominator. Also, confidentiality noticeboard diff updated. (I hope you don't mind my fixing that diff, @Codename Noreste:.) EggRoll97 (talk) 22:34, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

    Tags:

    edit Filter Noticeboard Does the private edit filter wiki exist?edit Filter Noticeboard Set filter 1285 to disallow?edit Filter Noticeboard Reactivated 1286edit Filter Noticeboard Erroredit Filter Noticeboard Requests archiveedit Filter Noticeboard Edit filter helper nomination for 1AmNobody24edit Filter NoticeboardSpecial:AbuseFilter/54

    🔥 Trending searches on Wiki English:

    WikiIndian Premier LeagueMiranda CosgroveThe Ministry of Ungentlemanly WarfareGeorge VDrake & JoshAaron HernandezList of Marvel Cinematic Universe filmsPakistanGoogle MapsBad Boys for LifeSimon BakerDamsel (2024 film)Kobbie MainooOppenheimer (film)Mckenna GraceSai SudharsanSolar eclipseShaitaan (2024 film)Leave the World Behind (film)England national football teamThe BeatlesIndia national football teamBecky LynchList of Indian Premier League seasons and resultsRobert De NiroTokugawa IeyasuIsraelThe Menu (2022 film)Kevin Von ErichHarold RamisA Serbian FilmUnited Arab EmiratesHelldivers 2Ashley ColeWashington, D.C.Adam SandlerFrancis Scott Key Bridge collapseSilent SpringBelgium national football teamContinuous truss bridgeNarendra ModiAndraya CarterBade Miyan Chote Miyan (2024 film)Grey's AnatomyAfghanistanLionel Messi2026 FIFA World Cup qualification (AFC)Lokesh KanagarajPete Rose2024 Russian presidential electionWojciech SzczęsnyRicky StanickyMadonnaRobert F. Kennedy Jr. 2024 presidential campaignMatthew PerryBohemian GroveTruth SocialRachel McAdams2024 Indian general election in MaharashtraThierry HenryThe Notorious B.I.G.Shikhar DhawanState of PalestineCanvaKobe BryantPrince (musician)Carrie FisherJapanJeffrey JonesGood FridayCharles IIIJim CarreyStripchatArnold SchwarzeneggerElliot Page🡆 More