Jump to content

Wikipedia:Edit filter noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Welcome to the edit filter noticeboard
    Filter 1316 (new) — Actions: none; Flags: enabled,private; Pattern modified
    Last changed at 14:15, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

    Filter 1315 (new) — Actions: throttle; Flags: disabled; Pattern modified

    Last changed at 00:02, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

    Filter 98 — Pattern modified

    Last changed at 00:56, 21 June 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.



    Requesting Edit filter helper rights[edit]

    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.


    Sakura emad (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)

    Hi,
    I am requesting Edit Filter Helper rights to aid in expanding and enhancing the quality and experience of AbuseFilter on the CKB Wikipedia.
    I aim to learn from the English Wikipedia's approach to improve ckbwiki's filters and its effectiveness. also i have a good understanding of account security. and as an extended confirmed editor and reviewer on the English Wikipedia, I believe that i have sufficient English understanding and proficiency.
    Additionally, I am an interface-admin and sysop on ckbwiki and hold various rights across multiple WMF projects, demonstrating my trustworthiness and capability.
    Thanks —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 05:47, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    QuestionNeutral You've satisfied the bar (probably?) for trust. I'm more interested on if you'd be able to elaborate on your working with filters on your homewiki. I've tried to check for your contributions to filters over there, but everything about the AbuseFilter is locked down on CKB, and so it's pretty hard to examine any work you've done with filters without being in the GAFH usergroup. Your rights on CKBwiki are currently sysop and interface admin, the latter of which doesn't relate to the AbuseFilter extension on CKBwiki (Another group, "Interface editors", appears to be the local equivalent of non-admin edit filter manager on CKB?), and the former of which doesn't necessarily indicate work with the edit filter by default. EggRoll97 (talk) 07:25, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Correction, only admins on ckbwiki can modify filters, based on looking at the ListGroupRights special page over there. Codename Noreste 🤔 La Suma 20:44, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I can tell, the abusefilter-modify right is available to interface editors (not interface administrators, despite the commonality of naming) as well as admins. EggRoll97 (talk) 18:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • To provide some input and context: I was approached by Sakura about some of our edit filters on the Wikipedia Community Discord (which is off-wiki). Her original request to me was for the regex code for the private edit filters that I created and manage (51, 53). Obviously, that didn't and really can't happen. The conditions and methods I use in those filters to efficiently identify and tag abuse would be significantly compromised if any of the regex code were to fall into the wrong hands. I do trust Sakura emad and I do believe that she is doing this to try and improve the chb-wiki's filter rules. But, as you all know, if a mistake or mishandling of the code were to occur (such as accidentally being made public in a change, etc), you can't "get the cat back into the bag once set loose". Hence, I suggested she gather demonstrable experience from her contributions and create a request for edit filter helper instead. When I asked Sakura on the wiki discord about her level of experience with regex and with modifying filter rules, she responded, "i [sic] send most of them to http://ckb.wiki.x.io/wiki/user:aram [sic]" and that "he is ckb technican". I was able to review the edit filters on the ckb-wiki as well as her level of involvement with them, and her contributions don't show much in that manner. Since I was approached by her off-wiki (Wikipedia Community Discord), I'm just going to add the information and facts about this request. I hope the information I provided is useful either way. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:23, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you tried asking for the contents of individual private filters? Are there any specific filters in your mind? I also note that I can't view the logs for abuse filters on ckbwiki without being confirmed. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 10:44, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    0xDeadbeef- EggRoll97, I've learned quite a few things from my experiences on the English and Simple Wikipedia. My adminship, particularly on Simple Wikipedia, has been crucial in shaping the admin I am today. Most of my experiences i've got came from these wikis, and the admins that helped me. even my global rollback right came from the experience of fighting and preventing vandalism on simplewiki. Given this background, it's clear that much of what I've learned did not come from ckbwiki alone. I believe that learning from the English Wikipedia’s approach to edit filters will greatly enhance my ability to improve and work on the current abusefilter on ckbwiki. I am committed to respect and responsibly use the rights I am granted.
    I have reviewed WP:EFH, especially the WP:EFHCRITERIA and the "Common use cases" on that page. I meet the requirements and specifically fit the second case under common use cases, as someone working with edit filters on another WMF wiki who wants to learn from the English Wikipedia's experience and approach.
    Thanks —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 16:32, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't have adminship on Simple, as far as I can tell...you have rollback, but that is far from any work with the AbuseFilter outside of CKBwiki, which you still have yet to elaborate on your work regarding. EggRoll97 (talk) 20:22, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    EggRoll97, let me clarify-; What I meant is that if it were not for my experiences on simplewiki in dealing with vandalism, deletion requests, etc. i wouldn't be the admin i am today on ckbwiki. Of course, it is obvious that I am not an admin on simplewiki my global status is already in public knowledge. —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 06:08, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think EggRol97 is asking you to talk about what you have used the abuse filter for in CKBwiki itself, so could you elaborate on that? – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 21:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sakura emad, do you also intend to help with filters on enwiki, now that you work with filters on ckbwiki as an administrator over there? I'm also curious about your regex knowledge in relation to edit filters here and there. Codename Noreste 🤔 La Suma 17:11, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Codename Noreste, Yes i would love to, actually. But i believe that i have to gain more experience first. Then I'd be happy to contribute on both WMF projects.
    Thanks —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 06:24, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    However, based on what Oshwah said in this context, it's pretty clear that you should gain much more experience with edit filters here, as well as your edit count. There are the public filters in which you can help here, and I'm not sure if your need requires access to private filters, in which most of those filters are private because of specific LTAs on this project, and some are hidden as well because the logs can contain personal information and/or other stuff that should not be made public. So because of ER97 and Ingenuity, I'm gonna have to oppose your EFH request at this time. Sorry. Codename Noreste 🤔 La Suma 18:59, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • What kinds of private filters are you looking to access? Most relevant filters (614, 384, etc.) are already public. —Ingenuity (t • c) 22:41, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ingenuity - I just added some information and context in this discussion that will answer your question. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Based on the information given by Oshwah through off-wiki contact, I don't have much confidence that the requestor is actively involved with edit filter work on their homewiki. EggRoll97 (talk) 03:10, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • EggRoll97, I understand the concern about my activity level with edit filters. I am working on them actually, but my limited experience and knowledge mean my contributions might not be as visible as expected of me yet. as you know Abusefilters are highly sensitive matter, and i just can't make changes for learning or experimentation. That's why my activity might not appear as high, but i do work on them on ckbwiki to the best of my current abilities. —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 06:45, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Much of the problem is that we can't see your contributions to CKBwiki's edit filters, and even if you were to post the logs publicly, it wouldn't be verifiable since it's not the actual logs themselves. A lot of it as well is that you still haven't elaborated either here or to the mailing list (which only contains EFH/EFM/sysops and where you could easily disclose any private filter contributions on CKBwiki that might not be best to post publicly) about your work on edit filters. Further, having seen the edit filters you requested from Oshwah, the contents of those filters are extremely sensitive to any type of outside access, and so are a lot of the other private filters, with one of them being traditionally information that would be oversighted if it wasn't a private filter. EggRoll97 (talk) 18:55, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • EggRoll97, are you suggesting that my request for 'extremely sensitive' filters implies an intention to harm the community? Out of the 54 abuse filters on ckbwiki, 10 are under my name. I need this right specifically to improve the quality of abuse filters on ckbwiki and contribute to them effectively. My account age is almost 4 years. Also regardless of contributions and Group-rights promotions i've received on ckb, please check CentralAuth—my home wiki is not ckbwiki, it is Enwiki.
            Oshwah failed to mention that I asked for 3 filters back then; I didn't specifically ask for his filters, but because he was the only admin I reached out to, 2 of the 3 filters were his. The reason I asked for the filters that Oshwah made was purely for improvement and gaining experience, since they were the only private filters at the time that I thought ckbwiki didn't have and that I needed to learn from, for the benefit of both projects in the future. Do you think Oshwah would have assisted me with the requesting procedure if he didn't trust me with abuse filters? —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 20:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
            Before requesting anything, I carefully examined the vital details of Wikipedia:Edit filter helper and only requested this right after I fully understood that I meet the requirements mentioned and that I'm fit for the position. Reading "Those working with edit filters on another WMF wiki who want to learn from the English Wikipedia's experience," I believe I did what I was guided to do. These opposes are unexpected for me since I don't know what regulations or rules I broke. —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 20:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
            • I suggested nothing of the sort. See WP:EFHCRITERIA, This is a highly specialized right that is routinely denied even to experienced editors...Meeting all the above criteria does not guarantee a request will obtain consensus support to pass, and I don't believe you have a demonstrated need currently to see private filters. EggRoll97 (talk) 22:05, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
              • EggRoll97, I believe I have repeatedly stated that I am working on improving the quality of ckbwiki abusefilters. If this doesn't demonstrate my commitment, then what else does?, however, it seems, Showing demonstration does not necessarily equate to being seen as one. —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 04:54, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
                • You have stated that, yes, but the modification log for CKBwiki's filters is hidden to almost everyone here, and your only specific comment about your work on them is what you said to Oshwah, which is that you send fixes to someone else. So all we really have to go on here is your own word. EggRoll97 (talk) 18:46, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per EggRoll. I also don't really see why access to private filters is needed. —Ingenuity (t • c) 14:33, 2 June 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.

    Do you think this warrants a filter?[edit]

    A new account suspiciously added 10 thousand bytes (my removal) of an invisible character to one of the templates at ANI when they made a reply. They also added them to their userpage just before that.
    I know this is probably crafty vandalism that only happens once in a while, if at all, but I don't think there's any legitimate reason that anyone would want to add more than a handful of invisible characters (if any invisible characters at all). – 2804:F14:80BE:B501:C033:1C2F:5D84:A79C (talk) 07:52, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This looks like it could also benefit from a software fix. I've filed private ticket phab:T366777. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:59, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That user was blocked indefinitely by Spicy as a sockpuppet. Codename Noreste 🤔 Talk 03:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Clarification: by that user, Codename Noreste meant the vandalizing user, not the IP posting the request. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 06:28, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Request to remove a user from filter 856's line 8[edit]

    Please remove Vami IV from filter 856's line 8 (copyvio clerks) because that user has passed away. Thank you. Codename Noreste 🤔 Talk 19:06, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

     Done -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:58, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Did other cleanup there, the current list of names is useless, and the group is really the right way to handle that anyway. — xaosflux Talk 12:20, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    A quick thought: Should WP:EFM be a page instead of a section?[edit]

    I've wondered for a while whether WP:EFM should be an actual page (similar to WP:EFH), rather than just a section on the edit filter page. Does anyone have any thoughts about whether this might break WP:CREEP, or whether this might be beneficial? EggRoll97 (talk) 01:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    At this point, yea - I've been meaning to do it forever and just kept putting it off. Feel free to draft something modeled on Wikipedia:Edit filter helper. — xaosflux Talk 02:06, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't object to this thought at all, but it's also worth noting that administrators can only modify edit filters that use restricted actions, as well as being able to enable such actions on filters. Codename Noreste 🤔 Talk 03:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Will do, though functionally the only restricted action is block-autopromote, which hasn't been used in over a decade, and would likely need multiple discussions to just have a single filter with it enabled anyways. EggRoll97 (talk) 21:31, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Xaosflux and Codename Noreste: Thoughts on what I've whipped up currently at Wikipedia:Edit filter manager? EggRoll97 (talk) 23:50, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @EggRoll97 the revocation criteria prob need work, as it is generally not appropriate for admins to just remove this from other admins, as opposed to the non-admin EFMs. — xaosflux Talk 23:59, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If this is going to contain any changes from the current content that are meaningful, like criteria for revocation, we should have a slightly more formal discussion/approval of the changes. E.g. "The editor has failed to report to an administrator after noticing unauthorized use of their account..." - if I were ever to notice unauthorized use of my account, I don't think I would be reporting it to admins on each wiki I have advanced rights. I would change my passwords and probably mention it to stewards, perform a crosswiki audit of every action performed recently, and likely reach out to the WMF security team since I have 2FA and would be curious how someone had bypassed it, but why do I need to tell an enwiki admin if when compromised the account didn't make any changes on enwiki? --DannyS712 (talk) 01:00, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also "If a previous application for edit filter manager or edit filter helper was unsuccessful" - I think I had an unsuccessful EFH request before I was granted it, but when I applied for EFM this currently suggests that I should have pinged the participants of the successful EFH discussion. I.e. I should have told the people at Special:Permalink/909783210#EFH for DannyS712 (2) about my EFM request, which would feel like canvassing to me. --DannyS712 (talk) 01:03, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @DannyS712: I've removed the "edit filter helper" bit currently, that was just a copy direct from WP:EFH, I thought I took out the helper one. The intention was only to require notification about prior EFM requests. As for the account security language, I'm pretty sure that's just the standard language, but I don't see much reason for it to be in there honestly. It was just part of EFH and so got copied over. EggRoll97 (talk) 01:55, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Xaosflux: I should ask, why would removal of this right from an admin not be considered appropriate? Admins are able to self-grant, so their granting of edit filter manager rights isn't subject to a community process in the same manner as non-admin EFMs (they are given adminship at RfA, though that doesn't necessarily assess technical ability unless the admin is running on being a tech-admin). I'd actually think it should be easier to remove from an admin, considering it would be trivially easy to regrant (just a talk page discussion between the revoking admin and the revokee), compared to the process to re-grant to a non-admin (a formal request to WP:EFN, requiring the action of an admin to re-grant). EggRoll97 (talk) 01:55, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Short answer, sanctioning admins is always a "big deal". — xaosflux Talk 09:35, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @EggRoll97: I'm seeing a lot of WP:CREEP in there. For example, it's never been a convention that disabling a filter, or changing it from disallow to log-only requires discussion. Sometimes, the meme dies a natural death, or the LTA gets bored, and a discussion will be the very thing that brings them back. I think any new rules for EFMs should be in response to some problem that's actually happened, not a problem that might happen. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:42, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Suffusion of Yellow: Yeah...I may have just gone on a bit when trying to start as detailed as possible. Removed, it doesn't make much sense in hindsight. EggRoll97 (talk) 00:42, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 01:07, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Tonight I made a couple edits to WP:EFH and WP:EFM that reduce WP:CREEP. We had a couple very detailed procedures for things that almost never happen, so I deleted those sections or changed them to a couple sentences. Hope it helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:12, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Novem Linguae: In Special:Diff/1230686585, should say edit filter helper, right? – 2804:F14:80BA:C801:4029:C761:8E13:F724 (talk) 22:17, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. Fixed now. Thanks for alerting me. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:21, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Request to change line 4 of filter 98[edit]

    98 (hist · log) (Creating very short new article, public)

    Per Wikipedia:Edit filter/Traps and pitfalls#user_rights, I would suggest changing !"extendedconfirmed" in user_rights & on line 4 with !contains_any(user_groups, "extendedconfirmed", "sysop", "bot") & because of this: but this will not work as expected if the user did not grant editprotected when setting up a bot password.. user_rights may be limited if the user has logged in using a bot password, or is editing with an OAuth application. Thank you. Codename Noreste 🤔 Talk 00:41, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Codename Noreste  Done, nice catch: Special:AbuseFilter/history/98/diff/prev/32847 --DannyS712 (talk) 00:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Error when saving filters[edit]

    Heads up: as of last WP:THURSDAY attempting to save certain filters will give you a Fatal exception of type "MediaWiki\Extension\AbuseFilter\Parser\Exception\UserVisibleException". See the task for details. If you need to disable a filter and can't wait for the problem to be fixed, just blank and disable it, but remember you won't be able to restore the old version until the bug is fixed. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 01:36, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]