Wikipedia talk:Edit filter

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:EF)
Jump to: navigation, search
Shortcuts:
the Wikipedia Help Project  
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of the Wikipedia Help Project, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's help documentation for readers and contributors. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. To browse help related resources see the help menu or help directory. Or ask for help on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you there.
 ???  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This page has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Requests for permissions[edit]

Request for permission: User:Shubhamkanodia[edit]

Hello, I'm a sysop on hiwiki, which is suffering with a shortage of active editors and hence needs stricter edit filters to keep vandalism in check. Compared to enwiki, the number of such filters on hiwiki is very small. I am looking to import a few filters, some of which have been set to private here. I request this permission for viewing the conditions and content of the filters. I don't intend to make any edits on enwiki. Thank You! Shubhamkanodia (talk)

Discussion[edit]

are edit filter-generated tags mutually exclusive?[edit]

I've noticed that edits never seem to have more than one tag that is generated by an edit filter. For instance, I've seen lots of page-blanking edits that are tagged with possible vandalism even though blanking would also normally apply but does not. For another example, have a look at the history of Sauli Niinistö: many of the recent edits were correctly tagged as possible BLP issue or vandalism. The vandal also reverted ClueBot NG several times, so the tag reverting anti-vandal bot should also have applied. But for some reason, it did not.

So I'm wondering: are tags generated by edit filters mutually exclusive? If so, is this by design? --Ixfd64 (talk) 18:29, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

@Ixfd64: I just tested this, and it's not actually a limit of one tag. The limit is that only one filter can apply any tags. This doesn't appear intentional. I'll see if I can get it fixed. Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:38, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Just a guess... Perhaps if one filter disallows, warns, or tags an edit, the edit filter software will short-circuit and ignore subsequent filters in an attempt to reduce server load. Far from ideal, but with all those filters enabled I imagine performance is a concern. — MusikAnimal talk 18:46, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
That's not it. All of the triggered filters show up in the filter log, but only the tags from one of them end up getting applied. Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:49, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
I've submitted a patch that will fix this. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:07, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick resolution! --Ixfd64 (talk) 20:54, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Jackmcbarn , I am not sure common patrollers will be happy with this change. suppose an edit is being tagged by more than 3-4 filters , Recent changes and article history shall not only get cluttered , if too many tags appear together at recent changes I doubt how freindly it will be patroller friendly. And what about those language scripts that make longer speellings ? Or is it that I misunderstood what you are discussing here? I wont oppose completely but I sincerely doubt the efficasy.
Best wishes and rgds.
Mahitgar (talk) 08:04, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
It won't clutter beyond the same line, unless someone used really long tag names, which we don't. Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:14, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Ok :) May be at mr wiki we will need to reduce length of few tags ! hope works with non roman scripts. Thanks. Mahitgar (talk) 04:17, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
My patch for this was just accepted. It will be live here starting July 10th. Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:33, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
@Ixfd64: This is now live here. See [1] for an example of it. Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
It works perfectly. Thanks for your hard work! --Ixfd64 (talk) 19:03, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Filter request[edit]

Hi all,

There is consensus developing over at Wikipedia talk:AFC#Edit filter for an edit filter to be used to help enforce use of the script to only those who meet the criteria which has been agreed on per several RfC's, and is listed here. This follows several recent occerances of SPA's using the script to mass-move pages to cause disruption. Ideally, the filter should pick up edits tagged with the string "afch" in the edit summary (in either lower or upper case), as it is added automatically by the use of the script. It may also be worth limiting this to draft space only, to limit any false positives. If you would like any more information, please let me know. --Mdann52talk to me! 16:37, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, there is a real problem here, and EFs seem like a solid solution. One question: To the extent that the filter or filters protect the allowed participant list, is the "afch" check required? It would seem that pretty much any edit or modification to that page should be gatekept, but perhaps I'm missing something? --j⚛e deckertalk 17:09, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Please provide a link to a sample of specific edits that you are suggesting the filter to act upon. Are you suggesting the filter action should be disallow or warn? — xaosflux Talk 17:37, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Apparently, it's possible to use the script even if the user is not in the participants' list page. If that bug is fixed, an easier solution would be to "protect" the page using the filter. --Glaisher (talk) 17:39, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
This whole thing is ridiculous. A person who wants to use the script wouldn't even need to know how to code to copy it to their own .js file and rip the check routine out of MediaWiki:Gadget-afchelper.js/core.js if they are intent on bypassing the AFC communities rules. Deal with the user's conduct and give up on trying to use technical means to control them. Monty845 17:56, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
@Monty845: It is a gadget and it's supposed to be used by users with less than 500 edits and user age of 90 days and listed on the WP:WPAFC/P. However, there is a bug and anyone can use it now even if their username is not on the list. The script has been abused by vandals already. --Glaisher (talk) 18:01, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict × 2) @Xaosflux: edit summaries using the script look like this or (mainly) this (this just invokes one part of the script, but gives you an idea of the structure. Let me know if you need more information). Ideally, it should disallow the edits, as they should not be using the script without meeting the criteria. @Glaisher:. That approach may help, but checking this for all edits will allow us to catch any existing users on the list that don't meet the criteria. --Mdann52talk to me! 18:02, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree with Monty. Bug or not, it doesn't take much to copy the script and remove the check, so that one could use it without being on the list (as a matter of fact, I did so myself long ago, so that I wouldn't have to bother with all the stuff AFCH is asking for if I happen to come across a draft I want to review). This is exactly why Twinkle doesn't have a blacklist at all, despite the even greater potential for damage it provides would-be vandals and abusers. And none of this is to mention that one doesn't need the script to review articles anyway. I really don't think that spending even a small amount of edit filter resources would be worth this. Writ Keeper  18:06, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

There seems to be some conflation here, and I'm sorry I didn't notice it earlier. The discussion here apparently refers to a much broader edit filter, the discussion that is linked at WT:AFC refers to an edit filter protecting only the AfC qualified reviewer list. A single URL. This distinction may or may not be important, but it was my view that FP on the participant list was an unnecessary impediment to getting more reviewers working at AfC, and I personally believe that the lack of timely reviews there is a situation which significantly degrading our ability to attract new editors--people who go to AfC now often have to wait over a month for a review. This is just nuts, and full protecting the participant list would make it worse. --j⚛e deckertalk 18:14, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Blacklists in userscripts are generally ineffective at keeping deliberate abusers away; if someone wants to evade one, it is relatively simple for them to do so, and virtually impossible to stop them. Again, the example of Twinkle and its blacklist (or more accurately, its lack thereof) seems relevant. Perhaps it would be better to scrap the blacklist, accept that there are going to be people that abuse it, and deal with the consequences through community processes? I see what you're going for, and I suppose there could be value in keeping the script at arm's length from well-meaning but incapable editors, but it seems that this proposal is being made in response to deliberate, repeated abuse of the user script, and a blacklist/whitelist, regardless of how heavily it's protected, will not solve the problem of intentional abuse. Writ Keeper  18:32, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
It's a whitelist, not a blacklist. --j⚛e deckertalk 18:34, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
My point applies equally to both whitelists and blacklists. Writ Keeper  18:35, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
I disagree. Isn't a whitelist far more effective than a blacklist? With careful acceptance of new names a ne'er-do-well should have a much harder time getting on the whitelist. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:40, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
The point is all you need to do to bypass the whitelist is add importScript('User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/afcHelperWrapper.js'); to your common.js file. Or modify the afc scrips yourself to the same effect. Monty845 18:42, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) You may be quite right that there is a better solution. I'm not sure I've seen it, but .. you may very well be right. I do think blacklists are easier to game than whitelists, for a reasons that I'm sure are obvious, but perhaps not so much easier that it matters. I would appreciate signficant, informed thought about how to deal with the problems that are occurring, though. And some understanding that I'm kinda frustrated--I think new article creation by new editors is a pretty delicate task that we are failing at horribly, and not a week goes by that I wonder whether it would be better to scrap AfC entirely. --j⚛e deckertalk 18:41, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────:(3x edit coflict) OK, so lets reform here---you want an edit filter that prevents ONE PAGE from being editing unless the username is on a list? How often is this page editing? Why can't protection and requests to change be utilized (much like the AWB checklist)? — xaosflux Talk 18:43, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

That's my preference, but not Mdann52's proposal above, yes. Full protection is probably my next second-favorite solution, my concern there is that many people will go "eh, too much work" and not make the edit request, at a time we're desparately short of reviewers. This may sound silly, but I think it's non-trivial. PC2, as I said at the proposal on the other page, feels like a bad solution because I don't expect reviewers to understand what we're looking to protect against, and the PC interface never implemented my suggestion of having for each PC-protected page a notice as to what problem or problems a PC reviewer should specifically look for. Semi-protection doesn't solve the abuse. Someone suggested template protection, and I'm more than willing to think IAR is good enough to invoke that, but it brings up the same concerns that brought me to dismiss PC2. But if my specific request was denied, and y'all make some reasonable points about it, I'd probably go to full protection on the participant list.
To contrast my view with that of WK so far, I'm taking the guess that a lot of abusers can manage to insert themselves on a list without really understanding scripting, but not the sort of change Writ Keeper describes. This is just a guess, and I could be entirely full of it.  :) --j⚛e deckertalk 18:48, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, you could be right, too; I don't know how badly people want to abuse the AFC helper script, or how knowledgeable they ware with scripting. Let it not be said that I'm the grand master of all things technical. :) In fact, I'm not even sure that this edit filter is something we shouldn't do. (Xaosflux: what Joedecker is looking for is an edit filter that will prevent them from editing one page if they have less than 500 edits., etc. etc. Something like:
article_articleid == 12438036 &
user_editcount < 500 &
user_age < 7776000
The idea is to have the edit filter prevent anyone from adding themselves to the whitelist if they don't have enough experience to be reviewing things.) All I'm saying definitively is that preventing these users from adding themselves to the whitelist is only a secondary concern; it's how they then proceed to use the script that's the real problem here. An edit filter could help to fix the former, but it won't necessarily fix the latter, since there are other ways to evade the whitelist, and so if you're proposing this with the expectation that it'll fix both, you may be disappointed. Writ Keeper  19:28, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Writ_Keeper, thanks - I think this is a really bad use for the edit filter, if we need an on-wiki whitelist just full-protect it and make an easy to use form to enter requests; there are plenty of people that review those types of requests, and it could even be transcluded at WP:PERM much like AWB already is. — xaosflux Talk 20:48, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Writ_Keeper I was thinking more of an edit filter that picked up certain features of the script (eg. Edit summaries or fixes applied), compare it to the user age etc. and deny the edit if they don't meet the criteria. Of course, it's only worth applying this in draft (and maybe user) space. --Mdann52talk to me! 20:52, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I know that's what you're looking for, Mdann52, but that's not what Joedecker meant. Unfortunately, your proposed edit filter runs into the same problem that Joe's would: it's just as easy to remove those identifying marks from edit summaries, etc. used in the script as it is to remove the code that checks the whitelist, so either way, an edit filter is far from a guaranteed fix. Moreover, I think your solution would have be much more significant, performance-wise, since we would be checking two whole namespaces rather than just a single page. It's also not what's being discussed on the AFCH talk page. Writ Keeper  20:58, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) WK: Exactly. More specifically, yes, that's precisely the test I was thinking of, and yes, this doesn't solve every problem by far. I'm not even sure we can solve one of the infrequent problems --people moving their own drafts to mainspace, there's not actually a policy prohibiting that. The ACTRIAL precedent may be relevant. But reviewing per se, and mass reviewing, badly, of other people's articles ... that maybe we can manage some hurdles for. --j⚛e deckertalk 21:15, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Right... With performance in mind, I support protecting just the participants page. --Mdann52talk to me! 05:47, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Does anyone review filters?[edit]

Is it possible to request that an overly restrictive filter be seriously looked at? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 16:14, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's possible. I assume you're talking about filter 601, which has blocked several edits coming from your IP address? Well, I'm probably not the best person to talk to about it, but the main author of that filter is Kww; they might have input. Writ Keeper  16:26, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I posted to his Talk page, in case he misses the ping here. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 16:41, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
It does far more good in keeping Colton Cosmic's activities at bay than it causes harm. Even the target has figured out that it keeps people within certain IP ranges from anonymously discussing blocks and unblocks. That's an easy enough activity to avoid or to do in an alternative fashion if no points of pride are getting in the way.—Kww(talk) 17:57, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
What about discussing “comment requests” in project space? It won’t even let me mention the term; I couldn’t even link a discussion from the closure noticeboard. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 20:27, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
A side effect of the poor judgement some admins exercised by opening an RFC/U about Colton. It's unfortunate that you share address space with a prolific and determined block evader. I'm very uninclined to weaken it in any way, especially when it's so easy for you to fix the problem on your end. Other editors are watching, and consensus may turn against me, so I will continue watch this discussion.—Kww(talk) 21:46, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Understood. This is all a lot less inscrutable to me now, so thanks for the explanations. I didn’t realize this user was still an active problem. Kind of unsettling, in a weird way, to know he’s apparently local to me. But again, thanks. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 01:08, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

No reaction on requests page[edit]

Hello all,

I requested an edit filter at the end of may without any response yet. Is there anything I could do to improve the chances of a response? Thanks for any comments, --Null Drei Nulltalk 16:16, 20 August 2014 (UTC)