Wikipedia talk:Edit filter

Third party edit filter manager requests

I think 3rd party requests for EFM should be disallowed. We already have elemnts of RfA lite with the process and having nominators would just make that more true. I don't know that this would be helpful to anyone. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:46, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I do agree with making this not RfA like, but at the same time "does an existing EFM I already trust endorse this user" is an easy way of knowing I can support this user. Galobtter (talk) 01:54, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Isn't that what the waiting period is for? Barkeep49 (talk) 01:56, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Sure, an EFM can also just endorse in the comments, rather than writing a nominating statement. Galobtter (talk) 03:32, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

It's interesting that substantially different community-consensus processes for granting rights seem to converge in ways. I say "substantially different" because the process here invites a different community that participates compared to RfA. Even on EFN, third party nominators seem to make requests go a lot more smoothly. An EFH request also had a third party nominator, and it led to consensus being greater in volume and clearer.

I suspect it's because EFH/EFM are primarily about trust (and some competence for EFM, not really needed for EFH), and third party nominators serve as a good metric for trust. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:16, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Merge filter 874 and filter 1196 into filter 102

Moved to the correct noticeboard page

Sorry... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:06, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Suggested project page wording change to aid general understanding

Hi all. Even though this would not be a policy edit, I am making a suggestion here first rather than directly editing as I'm not part of the project, mainly just a tag filter user. I propose a change to the lead section, to read as follows:

---

The edit filter tool, also known as the abuse filter, is a Wikipedia extension mainly used for detecting common patterns of harmful editing, and addressing potentially-harmful edits at the moment of (attempted) submission. The tool automatically checks each new submission against a list of filters.

If a match occurs, the tool will log the action in the public edit filter log, and may additionally take any of the following actions:

• tag the edit summary
• warn the author
• revoke the author's autoconfirmed status
• prevent the edit entirely (in this case, the attempted edit will only remain visible to other users via the log)

Because even the smallest mistake in editing a filter can significantly disrupt the encyclopedia, only editors in the edit filter manager permission group can configure filters. These permissions are rarely awarded, and users must first show very good judgement and technical proficiency. Currently, there are 141 edit filter managers and 23 edit filter helpers. The filters currently in use can be found at Special:AbuseFilter.

Note: This page does not discuss technical details relating to the operation of the extension. These can be found at Extension:AbuseFilter.

---

Reason: This wording and order is more focused on what most (i.e. non-managing) users see when we investigate potentially-rogue contributors, and helps us understand the operation of the tool better and more quickly, without detracting for managers. It also disambiguates the tool itself from the individual filters (both are currently called "filter"); keeps related information together; is more concise; and makes it clearer that we can see prevented edits via the log.

Me first discovering the latter today - in the process, discovering an obvious sockpuppet - was what motivated me to finally put some more effort into understanding the edit filter, and to suggest a change that hopefully helps others do the same.

Let me know of any objections or suggestions. Turtlecrown (talk) 19:16, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Edit filter manager has an RfC

Wikipedia:Edit filter manager has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 19:03, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Why is this page an editing guideline?

I think it ought to be an enforcement policy. Editing guidelines generally cover how articles are structured, not how the backend runs. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:55, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

@Voorts: Not a bad idea, actually. Not sure if this would need further consensus though, I'm hesitant to make the change without consensus personally, though I doubt anyone would object if it was recategorized. Most recent consensus as of 2015 though currently stands at the community determining that This guideline does not have the force of policy. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 18:40, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:PROPOSAL, upgrading this to a proposalpolicy requires an RfC and a high level of consensus. Could you please link to the prior discussion that established consensus? I want to see if there are good reasons not to give this the force of policy. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:46, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Maybe you meant to say "upgrading this to a policy"? Edit filter/RfC said "guideline". I would object if it was made a policy. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:39, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Regardless of the idea of upgrading to a policy, it seems "editing guideline" would probably remain the appropriate category of guideline to place this in (we don't necessarily have a "technical guidelines" category), as the description says Editing guidelines usually provide non-content advice about categorization, navigation or other how-to-edit advice. The other categories are style (edit filters aren't really stylish), notability (there's a few filters that deal in deprecated sources, but otherwise the edit filter isn't necessarily a good fit there), naming (doesn't apply), deletion (doesn't apply), content (filters cover more than the article namespace, and this probably wouldn't be the best fit), and behavioral (which reads like more of a category for user conduct, not methods of enforcement). Ultimately, only behavioral would be close to a better place to move this to within the existing guideline categorization structure, and it doesn't really seem best to move it there. I'd still probably say the best way to change the guideline label would be to get consensus to upgrade the page to a policy, and to make it into an enforcement policy. I'm not necessarily sure about the odds of that, though. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 20:37, 7 July 2024 (UTC)