Jump to content

Wikipedia:Edit filter noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"WP:EFN" redirects here. For information on the {{efn}} template, see WP:EXPLNOTE.
    Welcome to the edit filter noticeboard
    Shortcuts
    Filter 1232 — Flags: disabled
    Last changed at 05:25, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

    Filter 1321 — Flags: enabled

    Last changed at 03:42, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

    Filter 174 — Actions: disallow

    Last changed at 19:29, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

    Filter 1325 — Pattern modified

    Last changed at 00:18, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

    Filter 614 — Pattern modified

    Last changed at 05:46, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

    Filter 782 — Pattern modified

    Last changed at 00:08, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

    Filter 833 — Pattern modified

    Last changed at 00:08, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

    Filter 1330 (new) — Actions: none; Flags: private; Pattern modified

    Last changed at 18:55, 28 November 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 333 enabled filters and 48 stale filters with no hits in the past 30 days. Filter condition use is ~665, out of a maximum of 2000. (Purge). See also the profiling data and edit filter graphs.

    Click here to start a new discussion thread


    1094 is probably broken

    [edit]

    I've notified Ohnoitsjamie, it's catching around 30% of all filters caught rn, I don't know what's happening (I'm not an EF helper). Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 19:39, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Fixed. Jamie, please ensure it works as intended now. DatGuyTalkContribs 19:50, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Courtesy ping @Ohnoitsjamie Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 19:52, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's  fixed now. Codename Noreste 🤔 Talk 00:17, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikidata changes and the edit filter

    [edit]

    Is it known that edits at Wikidata can generate an invisible edit action here on Wikipedia, if there is an existing page associated with that data? (assumption)
    For example, these are the variables generated by the Edit Filter for d:Special:Diff/2279185334. It's an edit action with an empty edit_diff - I wonder if it's ever not empty? (kinda hard to find these, they don't show up the examine list for me, just like the minor edits don't).
    I guess what I'm getting at is:

    • Is this intended? Is this known? (is this correct?)
      • If not, then does this affect anything?

    Obviously I'm only asking a response from what you feel you should/can answer, if it's not known but it affects something private (unlikely) then I'm fine with just pointing it out so you can consider if it does and how. I just found this unexpected, didn't find it in the documentation (and in a basic search of noticeboards).
    Edit: I'll add a description of facts, to not make things confusing with my assumptions:

    – 2804:F1...E8:775A (::/32) (talk) 18:51, 24 November 2024 (UTC) *edited: 19:59, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    There 's no related data on enwiki. I don't know why there would be, but then I don't know of any invisible edit action on wikidata that generates anything here. The last filter hit for Edition (book) (on this wiki) was in March this year. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:07, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I hadn't noticed that, the examine says the page that the edit action happened was Wikipedia:Featured articles in other languages/Russian, not even Edition (book).
    Now I understand it even less. – 2804:F1...E8:775A (::/32) (talk) 19:31, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at the AF source code, it looks like this might be a bug with /examine or /test. Wikidata edits shouldn't normally go through the abuse filter of other projects. XXBlackburnXx (talk) 21:15, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Another example: Special:AbuseFilter/examine/1844717211 shows an edit from Jevansen to Category:Politics and government work group articles, even though Jevansen never made any edits to that category. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ XXBlackburnXx (talk) 21:55, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This edit seems to be the cause (the diff matches, it's the correct timestamp too)... but where did that edit summary come from?
    Perhaps there really are invisible 'edit' actions, caused by other changes, one being Wikidata changes? – 2804:F1...E8:775A (::/32) (talk) 23:27, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you really want to figure out what's going on there you'd probably have to ask on Wikipedia:Phabricator. Nobody (talk) 06:09, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait, I decided to search for the edit summary of the non-visible category edit, found out it's the message MediaWiki:Recentchanges-page-added-to-category, searched for that I found out:
    - These are recent changes related, they do indeed exist and are tracked here on Wikipedia!
    - The non-visible category edits (that @XXBlackburnXx found) are here: Type of change: Category changes (they don't really have diffs)
    - The non-visible Wikidata edits (that I found) are here: Type of change: Wikidata edits (don't have diffs either, they just link to the Wikidata diff)
    These are intentional. So yeah, apparently the filter can see them, they're just perceived as edits... thinking really deeply about it, I'm pretty sure this does not have any unintended effects on any filter... well there IS a good amount of them per minute(both). – 2804:F1...F1:29EC (::/32) (talk) 21:09, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Though that makes me curious... what happens if a filter disallows/warns/captchas one of these? – 2804:F1...F1:29EC (::/32) (talk) 21:26, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Back in 2013 they wanted to have Wikidata changes show in article's histories (phab:T42358)... the idea is that a change in Wikidata (ex: changing the description of a page or adding/removing a language link, etc.) can affect the Wikipedias - this does not answer the question of what even happens if an enwiki filter disallows one. – 2804:F1...F1:29EC (::/32) (talk) 21:54, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a bug in the /examine page, as I said earlier. The /examine page retrieves data from the `recentchanges` table in the database, and attempts to generate variables as accurately as possible, but it also unintentionally checks CategoryMembershipChanges and Wikidata edits. These actions are never processed by the AbuseFilter. XXBlackburnXx (talk) 23:09, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, well then, sorry for misunderstanding you. I found it very interesting, but sorry for wasting people's times. – 2804:F1...1F:8749 (::/32) (talk) 23:41, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Setting 174 to disallow

    [edit]

    Follow up from this discussion.

    Are there any objections to setting 174 (hist · log) (New user removing XfD template) to disallow? This would hopefully help curb a fair amount of disruption and should have very few false positives. C F A 22:49, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This makes sense to me and I don't see a problem with it. Ternera (talk) 17:30, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
     Done; I've tried to add wording for good faith non-XCON editors trying to close XfDs to MediaWiki:Abusefilter-disallowed-removing-xfd-notice, feel free to suggest improvements. charlotte 👸♥ 05:17, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I have a couple of suggestions, one for the message and one for the filter itself:

    For the message, I have this suggestion that should appear less bitey and included so it has been disallowed as well as some grammar fixes: 

    {{edit filter warning
| filter = 174
| action = disallow
| friendly = yes
| text = An automated filter has detected that you are attempting to remove an [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion|Articles for deletion]] or [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion|Miscellany for deletion]] notice from this page, so it has been disallowed. Please understand that removing it will not stop the discussion from taking place, and discussions should only be closed by experienced users. If you oppose the deletion, please comment at the respective page instead. If you did not remove any such notice, please [[Wikipedia:Edit filter/False positives|report this error]].
}}
    Message preview

    As for the filter itself, I would suggest this modification to reduce the condition limit a little, just below: 

    xfdRegex := "\{\{(?:AfD[M1]|Article for deletion|mfd)";

equals_to_any(page_namespace, 0, 2) &
!contains_any(user_groups, "extendedconfirmed", "sysop", "bot") &
removed_lines irlike xfdRegex &
!(added_lines irlike xfdRegex)

    Please also remove the tag from the filter, as edits that are disallowed by filter 174 are never going to be tagged when prevented. Thanks. Codename Noreste 🤔 Talk 06:07, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

     Done charlotte 👸♥ 19:29, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. C F A 15:35, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Resurrect ST47ProxyBot?

    [edit]

    I've created a phab ticket to discuss possibly resurrecting ST47ProxyBot. phab:T380917. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:15, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Preventing unauthorized changes to edit filter configuration

    [edit]

    Inexperienced users should not be making changes to Template:DatBot filters related to filters they may not be able to view, especially new or experimental filters that aren't stable, and there's potential for abuse by disruptive users. This is something I've been concerned about for a while. Generally, we would solve this with template protection or full protection, but that would prevent EFMs and EFHs from modifying the page, so I instead added a filter at 484 (hist · log). While this is a bit of a corner case right now, the runtime cost is very low, and I think there may be some similar use cases in the future. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 22:46, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I talked with DatGuy earlier, keeping him in the loop here. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 22:53, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean, feasibly template protection could work, the only problem that would be run into would be that all the (10?) non-admin EFMs would likely immediately request the template editor permission, which isn't a...bad idea (I've mentally floated proposing editinterface to eliminate the need for edit requests for filter messages, but frankly I don't have the confidence to put it up for an RfC given it would likely fail pretty badly, given it includes all the MediaWiki pages, not just the ones adding it would fix). Theoretically the granting guidelines are merely guidelines, and I can't think of a much better substitute for proof of technical experience than a community consensus showing such. EggRoll97 (talk) 23:37, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, adding the templateeditor right to EFMs is another option. However, it's not worth proposing based on a single example (the proposal would also likely fail), especially when we have a workaround that addresses the immediate need. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 00:01, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Most people don't edit that page, and the edit request process is always available too. — xaosflux Talk 17:41, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I wondered in the past if it would make sense that: Those who can't see private filters, can't add them to {{DatBot filters}}. I guess Daniel had the same idea. Nobody (talk) 06:23, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And FYI, there are no users that disruptively moved that edit filter configuration page, but it's better to be safe than sorry. Codename Noreste 🤔 Talk 21:19, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The page has been indefinitely fully move protected for several years. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 21:31, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll also just note that why we need to enforce pseudo-edit protection that goes beyond EC users (that do not hold edit filter privileges) is because of Special:Diff/1259682905. Codename Noreste 🤔 Talk 16:59, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A single unwanted edit? That's what revert is for. — xaosflux Talk 18:20, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No. That user added a private filter while they can't see private filters. Codename Noreste 🤔 Talk 19:02, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And? This section starts with the exciting title that this is needed to secure the "edit filter configuration" - this is a bot's page, it is not the configuration of the abusefilter. — xaosflux Talk 11:35, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Active filters that should have the extendedconfirmed condition modified

    [edit]

    Per Wikipedia:Edit filter/Traps and pitfalls#user_rights, please change !("extendedconfirmed" in user_rights) to !contains_any(user_groups, "extendedconfirmed", "sysop", "bot"), as user rights when using a bot password or an OAuth application may be limited. Thank you. Codename Noreste 🤔 Talk 03:31, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

     Done EggRoll97 (talk) 00:08, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Edit_filter_noticeboard&oldid=1260967536"