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 380 — Pattern modified Last changed at 03:50, 15 May 2024 (UTC) Filter 1305 — Actions: disallow,throttle Last changed at 17:51, 13 May 2024 (UTC) Filter 1285 — Pattern modified Last changed at 21:34, 12 May 2024 (UTC) Filter 1014 — Flags: enabled; Pattern modified Last changed at 19:20, 12 May 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 322 enabled filters and 47 stale filters with no hits in the past 30 days. Filter condition use is ~995, out of a maximum of 2000. (). See also the profiling data and edit filter graphs. Click here to start a new discussion thread

Filters 887 and 890

Following a reply to Suffusion of Yellow's comment on an earlier discussion, I decided to try my hand at rewriting the responses for these filters in a way which is more cordial and helpful. You may view them here. I chose to omit the "automated filter" bit of the usual message as - in my opinion - it seemed a bit too technical for new users, though you may edit my sandbox page and re-implement that if it's necessary. I also added a button which links to the WP:ACC website as it's the correct avenue for this rather than EFFP.

Feel free to make any changes that you wish, though I'd like to propose that the current system messages be updated if there's consensus here. I appreciate any feedback. Deauthorized. ^(talk) 02:49, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

I think there are definitely efforts we could make to make the messages more understandable. Whether this is the one, I’m not sure yet. I do like the possibility of linking to ACC, but to avoid creating a huge backlog for them, I’d remove the button and replace it with a simple link, after telling them to try a less repetitive or random username. We don’t want to discourage users from the very beginning! - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 12:11, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Removed the button and added a wikilink. I also made the wikilink go to the ACC Wizard rather than directly to the form to perhaps give a chance for alternatives (like using a different username as the message says) before going to ACC. As per discouraging new users, it seems rather inevitable with a filter like this as it prevents you from creating an account in the first place, so my idea was to try and make the message less BITEy than the current one to hopefully alleviate that. Appreciate the response. Deauthorized. ^(talk) 14:29, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

• The revised version as described above looks good to me. +1 for implementation. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 16:25, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Deauthorized @Taking Out The Trash I’ve made another change to sway users to create an account and to only encourage ACC use if they believe their username isn’t repetitive or random. Thoughts on that? Always a pleasure to chat with you on Discord @Deauthorized. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 22:54, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

  I would prefer no link to WP:ACC. That "Wizard" contains lots and lots of text to read. This isn't the IRS and they don't have do deal with us if they don't want to; when their eyes glaze over, they'll just to go to another site. Instead, maybe remind people that usernames aren't permanent, and they can always pick a new name later. Compare MediaWiki:Abusefilter-disallowed-LTA-username. Otherwise, the new messages look good; thanks for getting the ball rolling. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 00:32, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

  I respect your opinion on ACC, but I think your view is definitely a minority. An ACC member reported about that the maximum wait is about 12 hours for acc. The message, after my modifications, asks you to try a different username first and to only use ACC if they believe the filter stop was incorrect. ACC exists a lot for this reason, so we might as well let them carry out their purpose. I welcome other thoughts and can definitely be persuaded here. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 00:52, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

  Suffusion does sorta make sense. No matter the wait time for the ACC process, Special:CreateAccount will always be faster. As per which human-based process is faster (ACC or account rename requests), I'm not sure, but the account rename process seems like it'd be a better choice as you'd be able to get your proverbial foot in the door editing-wise before having the username you want. It seems like Wikipedia:Changing username also has a bunch of words to read though, but so does Wikipedia as a whole I suppose.

  Anyways, I made some changes to reflect Suffusion of Yellow's suggestion. Let me know what you think. Deauthorized. ^(talk) 14:01, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

  I’m fine with the addition of possibly changing usernames later, but I’d prefer if the note about requesting an account wasn’t removed. We might as well let users choose which option they prefer. Also, there’s a weird line spacing with the new change as well. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 14:05, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Removed the line spacing. Having both options might be a bit confusing for people trying to register, unless you can fit both in there without drawing it out too much. Deauthorized. ^(talk) 14:43, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

That’s a good point. Having both might be confusing/discouraging. I still think that the whole renaming process is much more confusing and complex then requesting an account. But if others think elsewise, I guess we can just not use ACC. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 14:49, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Consensus?

This conversation has been inactive for a little while, and it seems like there's a rift between including a link to ACC or informing users that they can choose a new name at any time. Other solutions would be welcome as well, but I want to come to an agreement on an implementation. Deauthorized. ^(talk) 17:46, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I am happy with your latest update to the messages. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:37, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Glad to hear that. I'll probably put it into an edit request later today. Deauthorized. ^(talk) 17:55, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Filter 803

From this recent false positive report, would the button to report false positives be needed? Most of the logs I can see are the filter working properly. Deauthorized. ^(talk) 14:30, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

From my experience, most of these reports come from IP editors who have forgotten that they've logged out of their accounts. We should therefore first instruct users to make sure they are logged in before filing a report. Partofthemachine (talk) 23:26, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I don’t think the button is needed. Non-autoconfirmed editors shouldn’t be able to edit others userpages. End of story. We definitely still need to keep the disallow message, but let’s lose the button. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 23:57, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

I never suggested removing the message, just the button. Deauthorized. ^(talk) 18:19, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

"Rapid Disruption III"

(Private filter, ID not known). What exactly is going on here? Taking Out The Trash (talk) 23:33, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I've changed the filter so that WPCleaner edits don't trigger it. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 23:45, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

This happens because sockpuppets often try to gain autoconfirmed/extconfirmed permissions by rapidly making edits where they add a single whitespace character. Partofthemachine (talk) 23:51, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

FilterDebugger

For a while now, I've building a tool to replace Special:AbuseFilter/test with something more useful. It's been lurking on my local machine, slowly congealing more features as they occur to me, and it feels a bit selfish to leave it there. It needs some work still, but I'm curious as what y'all think of think of what I've done so far. Features:

• See which part of edit matched the regex
• See which part of the regex matched the edit
• Immediate response as you type; no need to submit anything to a server and wait
• Test any batch size that will fit in memory
• Test from recent changes, older revisions, abuse logs, or a local file
• Does not require EFH/EFM access; all the tests are run client-side, so anyone can use it

Of course, there are going to be lots of bugs. And I can't replicate every feature of PCRE with JavaScript regexes. But for most filters, it should produce reasonably accurate results.

Anyway, if you are on a modern, up-to-date browser, try installing User:Suffusion of Yellow/FilterDebugger.js, and navigating to Special:BlankPage/FilterDebug/filter/614. Please report bugs, and suggest improvements! Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:50, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

This is outstanding! Thanks so much for taking the time to improve a tool that, to be honest, has needed improvement for awhile. I’m going to install it now! - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 23:55, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Update: I’m getting the error: Sorry, but your browser is too old to support FilterDebugger.

My browser is the latest chrome browser, so I’m not sure how it’s too old. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 23:59, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

@Illusion Flame: Can you try again? I made that message a bit more detailed. (And what version exactly?) Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 00:45, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Ooh, that looks super nice. Works for me. Galobtter (talk) 21:43, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

260 and 384 needs update

See: Special:AbuseLog/35642320

I would recommend 260 and 384 to have a lowercase letter l (L) added to the regex for "alternatives" to the letter I for this word. DarmaniLink (talk) 22:28, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

possible MOS:ETHNICITY violation

What does this filter do? I have a vague idea of what it does but I'd like to know first. If it's what I think I'd like to propose an addition. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 10:10, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

@Super Dromaeosaurus: It's coming from Special:AbuseFilter/982, which is related to this discussion. Its scope is intentionally fairly narrow. You are able to examine it to see its full logic, as it is public, if you'd like to suggest improvements. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:13, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

CC: Galobtter, who's the maintainer of that filter. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:16, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Is it really that narrow? The reason why I wanted to propose a change is because info regarding the Aromanian (a Balkan ethnic group living mostly in Greece, Albania and North Macedonia) ethnicity of some biographies is often deleted. Regarding Albanian biographies I have all of these examples: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8], they're from different people I'd say, I already went to ANI and the help desk over this issue. This is normal among Balkan biographies however the Aromanians being the only stateless and disorganized major Balkan group (this being why you haven't heard of them before) there's nobody to revert and watch over these pages. This has also happened in biographies more associated with Greece [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] (all of these are actually the same page and the same guy, just different accounts and also different times) [21] (look at the history and scroll a bit down, exact same situation) [22] (again the same).

I'm worried because I've put effort into increasing info about them and their visibility and I don't want random IPs to undo my work throughout the years. Could a filter be added for removals of "Aromanian" and "Aromanians" or something like that? Maybe by any user that isn't extended confirmed? Just some ideas, I don't know what is usually applied in cases like these. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 17:38, 11 August 2023 (UTC)