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 98 — Pattern modified Last changed at 00:56, 21 June 2024 (UTC) Filter 1269 — Flags: enabled Last changed at 23:08, 18 June 2024 (UTC) Filter 1314 (new) — Actions: none; Flags: enabled,private; Pattern modified Last changed at 17:36, 18 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. There are currently 330 enabled filters and 47 stale filters with no hits in the past 30 days. Filter condition use is ~1017, out of a maximum of 2000. (). See also the profiling data and edit filter graphs. Click here to start a new discussion thread

Easier reporting of false positives

Presently, any time someone is affect by a false positive, they are told (by Mediawiki:Abusefilter-disallowed and related messages) to "report this error". Whereupon they are taken to WP:EF/FP and have to click another link to actually make the report. Why not skip a step?

Old message:

New message:

Note, also, that we can now pre-fill the page name!

Questions:

• Does this seem like a good idea? Yes, it means more spurious EFFP reports, but also more good ones, too.
• Should this be the default for all messages? All "disallow" messages but not "warn" messages? Or only a few messages?
• It's technically possible to automatically include either the filter id or the filter description in the report. I decided to leave that out per BEANS, but should either be included?
• I wanted to also prefill the username, so we can get rid of that {{subst:currentuser}} crap in Template:False positive/Preload, but couldn't figure out how. It seems {{REVISIONUSER}} doesn't work in edit filter messages. Can anyone figure out a way?

To see this actually in action, go to WP:EF/MT and attempt to make any edit. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:24, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

This is a great idea! I strongly support this change of adding the button. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 22:51, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

This is a great idea. I'm not sure if the subst:currentuser thing can be removed. {{subst:currentuser}} already substitutes REVISIONUSER anyways. (by the way, is there documentation for how the filter message is rendered? Are there magic words that we can use in those messages to retrieve additional data?) 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 00:08, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I know of no such documentation; it was just trial and error on testwiki. I know that $1 is the filter description and $2 is the filter ID. {{FULLPAGENAME}} works, but {{REVISIONUSER}} doesn't, probably because it's technically an "edit notice" and {{REVISIONUSER}} isn't allowed in editnotices. I was able to get get of currentuser/REVSIONUSER in the preload by moving it "down a level" to {{False positive}}. But it's still in the section title, which looks ugly. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:59, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Not as much participation here as I had hoped, but I'll interpret it as WP:SILENCE. So unless anyone else objects, I'm going to put in an edit request to make this change to Template:Edit filter warning. Also:

• For now, I don't want to change the wording of MediaWiki:Abusefilter-disallowed and related messages; the message is rendering funny in the Android app, and I'm not sure if "click the button below" makes sense to screen reader users. Also there are about 35 messages to update! There's no harm in a redundant link.
• The button will only show in disallow messages, not warning messages. Why? Because unless you open the link in a new tab, you're abandoning your edit. Let's not make the link too inviting.
• Individual messages can be opted out or in with the fplink parameter.
• I'm not including the filter description or id, even though that's public information. I doubt many drive-by vandals know how to find their abuse log, so let's not say "this is the exact thing you were doing; stop doing that and your edit will save".

Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:12, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Y Sounds good to me! - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 22:14, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea, thanks for doing. Making it easier to report FPs is definitely a good thing. Galobtter (talk) 18:11, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Set 1252 to disallow

1252: See Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested#Filmcompanion and MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/May 2023#Filmcompanion.in. TrangaBellam (talk) 04:49, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Someone needs to add a disallow message before this can be set to disallow. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 04:52, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Maybe use something like, "An automated filter has identified this edit as potential spam, so it has been disallowed. If this edit is constructive, please click the button below. Disruptive behavior may result in being blocked from editing."? I borrowed the language from Suffusion's template, two threads above. TrangaBellam (talk) 04:56, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

It's probably better to have something specific to spam blacklists (the same as the spam blacklist message). 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 05:11, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

@0xDeadbeef: Suggest something, please? I am not really well versed with these filters etc. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:20, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Don't have time for it right now, but I think something similar to MediaWiki:Spamprotectiontext could help. The problem is that the user wouldn't know which specific link triggered since edit filters don't support showing which part. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 18:08, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

So, what's the way out? Suffusion of Yellow, I will appreciate some aid. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:59, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Right now, there's only one (1) domain in filter 1252. So let's just hard-code the link into the filter message. If we want to add a dozen domains or so, then we can just list them in a table, as with MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning-predatory. If we want to add hundreds of domains, then we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. (And, TrangaBellam, I will get around to this in a day or so if no one else does.) Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 02:37, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I am unclear my friends. Why is this edit filter required? If we have the website in the blacklist, why should we allow editors to selectively add this? Do please advise. Warmly, Lourdes 05:12, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Read the linked discussions? The EF is designed so that the link can be whitelisted. We are talking about a highly reliable website which, regrettably, has been spammed into our articles. TrangaBellam (talk) 03:41, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Ok, really simple, but:

@TrangaBellam:, anything you want to add to that? Under what circumstances might such an talk request be approved? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 00:07, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

• The website you quote is run by the wife of a film producer and that has a few journalists other than her, and opinion-editorial contributors, it seems. I see significant amount of content that seems paid for. Some movie reviews by her and unnamed persons seem watchable though. Why would you consider this a reliable source? It seems a puff-piece site. I may be horribly wrong here though. Let me know. Lourdes 06:46, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Also, I don't see any discussion where consensus has been reached for white-listing this site. Can you please give me the exact discussion where consensus is clear on this? Thank you again. Lourdes 06:47, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

    Consensus on whitelisting can be located at this thread; see sysop BlackKite's final reply: Yeah, that seems reasonable.

    Consensus about the reliability of the site can be found at this thread. You are indeed horribly wrong, as is (regrettably) often the case — 1, 2, etc. TrangaBellam (talk) 08:54, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Support administrator rights to test filters?

I recently requested administrator rights on Wikipedia’s TestWiki to test possible filter changes, while reviewing false positives reports, to help the wiki. Xaosflux said that some community support for this would help the granting process. How do you feel about this? Simply respond to this post with your support, or lack thereof. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 15:35, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

FYI: testwiki:Wikipedia:Requests/Permissions/Illusion Flame. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:57, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

@Illusion Flame: I really doubt this will be as useful as you imagine. There's no way easy way to test hits from enwiki on testwiki, unless "someone" writes a script to do so. But if you really want this, I have no objection to a temporary grant. Please be careful. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 18:41, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I see your point. I would also like access to the testing tools, specifically the ones that let you check for errors in the code. I think it would generally still be helpful, just not as helpful as I anticipated. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 18:55, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

@Illusion Flame, I know that you have already mentioned you would rather use a Wikimedia Foundation wiki, but for fortestwiki.myht.org has AbuseFilter installed, and has a strong privacy policy with minimal logging, and I hold a few rights there and would be able to grant you the administrator rights if you wish. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 19:19, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate the suggestion, but I would really like to stay on WikiMedia Foundation wikis only. As a computer geek, I understand IPs and User agents, that the checkuser tools shows. I really don’t trust some random wiki owner with access to my personal IP and user agent. I hope you understand. Do you support me accessing Wikipedia’s own testing wiki? - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 20:12, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

@Illusion Flame Support for temporary grant - I would support for a 3 month grant for the explicit purpose of testing filters, if there is good quality (IMO) filter authoring then I would support a renewal for another 3-6 months. You may however want to consider hosting your own MediaWiki install, but I imagine testing filters is easier on wiki with other users to provide assistance. I do agree with not trusting random people with your IP. Thanks, Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 21:30, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support Lourdes 11:14, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks @Lourdes, but I should clarify that sysop rights have already been granted, so no further comments are necessary. Definitely appreciated though. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 11:22, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Change page on filter 320

Filter 320 ("Your mom" Vandalism) apparently excludes the page Maternal insult, but was moved to "Yo mama" joke, so the page needs to be changed. 2NumForIce (^speak|_edits) 23:14, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 23:19, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Proposed merger of SpamBlacklist and AbuseFilter

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T337431

Please comment at phab:T337431. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:19, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

EFM Needed

There are multiple reports on the false positives page that need attention from Edit filter managers. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 11:24, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

@Illusion Flame Go to wikipedia-en-editfilters on IRC and someone can probably help there. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 11:30, 12 June 2023 (UTC)