Wikipedia:Edit filter noticeboard: Difference between revisions
→Edit filter manager right for ProcrastinatingReader: Strong oppose |
|||
Line 78: | Line 78: | ||
*'''Support'''- No reservations from me. <span style="border:1px solid #FFFFFF">[[User:Aloha27|<b style="color:#2B65EC;background:#FFFFFF"> Aloha27</b>]] [[User talk:Aloha27|<span style="color:#FFFFFF;background:#2B65EC"> <small>talk</small> </span>]]</span> 03:01, 20 February 2021 (UTC) |
*'''Support'''- No reservations from me. <span style="border:1px solid #FFFFFF">[[User:Aloha27|<b style="color:#2B65EC;background:#FFFFFF"> Aloha27</b>]] [[User talk:Aloha27|<span style="color:#FFFFFF;background:#2B65EC"> <small>talk</small> </span>]]</span> 03:01, 20 February 2021 (UTC) |
||
*'''Wait''' to see how [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#RexxS]] turns out. [[User:RexxS|Rexxs]] contends there that ProcrastinatingReader has "''implemented their own preference, unsupported by any broad community decision ... then deceptively omitted to mention the change in functionality ... and mislead the community ...''". As edit filter maintenance is similar to template maintenance, similar issues of trustworthiness apply. I have no particular opinions about the technical aspects of this but there seems to be a serious procedural dispute which requires resolution before further permissions are granted. [[user:Andrew Davidson|Andrew]]🐉([[user talk:Andrew Davidson|talk]]) 23:13, 20 February 2021 (UTC) |
*'''Wait''' to see how [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#RexxS]] turns out. [[User:RexxS|Rexxs]] contends there that ProcrastinatingReader has "''implemented their own preference, unsupported by any broad community decision ... then deceptively omitted to mention the change in functionality ... and mislead the community ...''". As edit filter maintenance is similar to template maintenance, similar issues of trustworthiness apply. I have no particular opinions about the technical aspects of this but there seems to be a serious procedural dispute which requires resolution before further permissions are granted. [[user:Andrew Davidson|Andrew]]🐉([[user talk:Andrew Davidson|talk]]) 23:13, 20 February 2021 (UTC) |
||
* '''Strong oppose''' I'm sorry to say that although I recognise ProcrastinatingReader's technical skills, I cannot trust them with sensitive permissions. ProcrastinatingReader displays the same problem that both {{u|Betacommand}} and {{u|Technical 13}} did: an inability to listen to concerns from others. ProcrastinatingReader created a template that attempted to combine general sanction (i.e. community) editnotices and discretionary sanction (i.e. ArbCom) editnotices, which behaved differently and had different uses. But instead of taking into account the differences, they decided to alter the behaviour of the COVID-19 editnotice for community-imposed sanctions to match that of the editnotices used for ArbCom-imposed sanctions. The result is that a decision taken unilaterally for programming convenience by someone who has never deployed a COVID-19 editnotice now prevents the editnotice being added in the way the old one could be, against the advice of the very people who use the editnotices. --[[User:RexxS|RexxS]] ([[User talk:RexxS|talk]]) 01:40, 21 February 2021 (UTC) |
|||
== How to help edit filters without special permissions? == |
== How to help edit filters without special permissions? == |
Revision as of 01:41, 21 February 2021
Welcome to the edit filter noticeboard |
---|
Filter 54 — Pattern modified
Filter 1310 — Flags: disabled
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 331 enabled filters and 47 stale filters with no hits in the past 30 days. Filter condition use is ~1009, out of a maximum of 2000. ( ). See also the profiling data and edit filter graphs. |
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
I was wondering if filter 733 could be set to disallow. This is because there's not really any reason for a new user to create a page in someone else's userspace, and also to stop the LTA Evlekis who attacks like that all the time. It might also be helpful for this to include the user talk namespace. Pahunkat (talk) 21:25, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
- Draft:DWTS ALL STARS was created as User:Bailando con las Estrellas/DWTS ALL STARS by a new account of the soft-blocked user Bailando con las Estrellas (talk · contribs). I generally support setting filter 733 to disallow, but the disallow message must explain how to easily rescue the creation by opening Wikipedia in a new tab, clicking "Sandbox" at the top and copying the content there. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:12, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
- The disallow message should be clear enough to make, but does anyone have objections to setting it to disallow? Pahunkat (talk) 22:05, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
- In all honesty, I don't think this would do much. Evlekis does the same kinds of page creations also in the Talk and Drat/Draft talk namespaces. Sro23 (talk) 18:05, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
909 evasion caught by 846
@Ohnoitsjamie and Suffusion of Yellow: Multiple attempts, the last one successful at saving. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:AbuseLog&wpSearchUser=172.58.203.179 ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
- @ToBeFree: Special:AbuseFilter/history/909/diff/prev/24520 Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:15, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Set filter 1102 to disallow?
First, see my summary of the most recent 50 unique users to trip this filter. Mostly vandalism, a few very aggressive edit warriors, and one weird FP. The only obvious way decrease the possibility of that kind of FP would be to increase the number of edits allowed before the filter trips. I'm willing to do that if anyone is bothered by that FP; the filter will still catch the worst cases.
This is the disallow message I have in mind:
![]() | Slow down!
An automated filter has identified this edit as possibly disruptive, so it has been throttled. This will allow other users, including administrators, time to review your changes. You may still edit talk pages and project pages during this time. If you would still like to save this edit, please wait at least 20 minutes, then click "Publish changes" again. Alternately, you can report this error without waiting. |
Yes, I'm telling people one way to evade the filter! But I think that's fine; this filter should only trip after one or more editors are already aware of the disruption. It's basically just meant to slow them down until an admin looks at WP:AIV or WP:AIV/TB2. Even they aren't reported, they'll probably get bored in that time anyway. And for the FPs, waiting seems preferable to begging for help at EFFP. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:54, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
- If the false positive had happened, with this specific error message, it would have been fine. And setting the filter to disallow seems nicely reasoned. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:17, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Backlog at Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested
There's about 20 requests for filters there, and at least a few seem like useful suggestions. Can some more people take a look at processing some of those requests? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 08:41, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Edit filter manager right for ProcrastinatingReader
- ProcrastinatingReader (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)
Per this and section above. EFR seems often backlogged; took around 5 months to implement RfC consensus for Facebook's filter. So offering to help if desired, I guess; have a CS background and experienced at writing regular expressions. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:27, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
- Support. ProcrastinatingReader has always had sensible suggestions, both about filters and other subjects. Plus, PR has been willing to call me out when I was wrong. We need multiple perspectives around here, lest the edit filter become the personal bot of the few active EFMs. Speaking of bots, PR's bot work demonstrates technical ability, if there was any doubt. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 02:25, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
- Support. Thank you for writing up the implementation for the Facebook filter. ProcrastinatingReader is highly familiar with the edit filter syntax, and would help get these requests handled in a timely manner. — Newslinger talk 02:48, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
- Support. Technically qualified, knows his regexes. Really should be considering RfA in order to get IAdmin. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:11, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
- Yes please, thanks for offering. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:24, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
- Support - And congratulations for the FB EF implementation, that lagged months behind after the RFC before you handled it, —PaleoNeonate – 12:47, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
- Absolutely, and in fact proc was the candidate I had in mind when I suggested the nomination/sponsorship/whatever approach to EFH/EFM a while ago. The above comments cover things pretty well, but I'd like to add that I trust them enough that I have told them small details of private filters in the past when they've asked (things like "which LTA is this filter targeting" or "what caused the false positive for that hit"). Excellent candidate for +EFM. SubjectiveNotability a GN franchise (talk to the boss) 13:43, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
- Trust ProcrastinatingReader without reservations. El_C 14:48, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
- Not much to add beyond pile-on support for a trusted editor. — The Earwig ⟨talk⟩ 15:17, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
- Support We clearly need more active EFMs and the user appears to be qualified for the role. Iaritmioawp (talk) 16:37, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
- On my pre-pandemic RfA to-investigate-list, so mos def. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:26, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
- Support LGTM --DannyS712 (talk) 19:09, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
- Support PR's work, both at EFR and elsewhere, has always been outstanding. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:18, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- Support Editor is absolutely responsible in their current work, and having the EFM bit would only seem to help them. I have no objections. EggRoll97 (talk) 18:19, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- Support - defo. Pahunkat (talk) 19:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- Support — Per Ritchie333. Furthermore I think EFM needs more hands on deck & personally I think ProcrastinatingReader is qualified for the job. Their technical abilities is also great. So yes please. Celestina007 (talk) 23:09, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- Support- No reservations from me. Aloha27 talk 03:01, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
- Wait to see how Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#RexxS turns out. Rexxs contends there that ProcrastinatingReader has "implemented their own preference, unsupported by any broad community decision ... then deceptively omitted to mention the change in functionality ... and mislead the community ...". As edit filter maintenance is similar to template maintenance, similar issues of trustworthiness apply. I have no particular opinions about the technical aspects of this but there seems to be a serious procedural dispute which requires resolution before further permissions are granted. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:13, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
- Strong oppose I'm sorry to say that although I recognise ProcrastinatingReader's technical skills, I cannot trust them with sensitive permissions. ProcrastinatingReader displays the same problem that both Betacommand and Technical 13 did: an inability to listen to concerns from others. ProcrastinatingReader created a template that attempted to combine general sanction (i.e. community) editnotices and discretionary sanction (i.e. ArbCom) editnotices, which behaved differently and had different uses. But instead of taking into account the differences, they decided to alter the behaviour of the COVID-19 editnotice for community-imposed sanctions to match that of the editnotices used for ArbCom-imposed sanctions. The result is that a decision taken unilaterally for programming convenience by someone who has never deployed a COVID-19 editnotice now prevents the editnotice being added in the way the old one could be, against the advice of the very people who use the editnotices. --RexxS (talk) 01:40, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
How to help edit filters without special permissions?
Not sure is this is the right place to sack, but how to help at edit filters without special permissions like EFH or EFM? Steve M (talk) 01:43, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Steve M: most filters are not hidden, and general discussion, help, and review is welcome here, at WP:EFFP and WP:EFR. — xaosflux Talk 01:49, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Set filter 1122 to disallow
No, I don't like it either. Please comment on the mailing list, if desired. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 17:32, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
- Also see 1123 (hist · log). Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:34, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Renaming Special:AbuseFilter/1060
It's a relatively minor thing, but given that 1060 has been set to disallow shouldn't the filter be renamed to something like "Attempted CSD tag removal by creator" instead of "CSD tag removed by page creator"? Pahunkat (talk) 19:00, 20 February 2021 (UTC)