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 ~993, out of a maximum of 2000. (). See also the profiling data and edit filter graphs. Click here to start a new discussion thread

Request for EFH right: CX Zoom

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

CX Zoom (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) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb)}

Hi, I'm CX Zoom. I have over 15 thousand edits on English Wikipedia, and also am an administrator on pi: Wikipedia. I understand account security practices, regex, have no blocks or sanctions, and able to understand English. Currently, I need access to filters to enhance my knowledge about the workings of edit filters, so that I could replicate some of them at piwiki. In the future, if the need arises, I may also help with edit filters locally on enwiki when I understand it good enough. Thanks! —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 12:59, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

@CX Zoom Wouldnt WP:Test Wikipedia be the better place for this? Nobody (talk) 13:25, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure about that. I would like to study existing edit filters to understand how they work (regex), how a hit gets logged, etc. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 13:39, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Which private filters do you need to look at? The majority are public, so you shouldn't need EFH to view them.. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 13:56, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

For now, I guess edit filters Special:AbuseFilter/397, Special:AbuseFilter/466, Special:AbuseFilter/739. There is some persistent vandalism by IPs (each one is a global vandal) since April where they create use pages of users with completely English content on various wikis, presumably copied from somewhere else. I wish to block them (using filters) on piwiki. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 14:58, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable then 😊 support from me — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 07:42, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

As an aside, I am happy to send you the contents of those three mentioned filters for use on pi.wiki (providing they're also set to private of course) — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 08:40, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, its very nice of you. Can you also point me to a filter that captures non-English characters? I'd need that but doing the exact opposite work (capture English characters). —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 09:16, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I think that’s a better idea then granting EFH. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 12:21, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I'd support EFH here. CX Zoom has a genuine need for the permission, and he can be reasonably trusted with this information. (non-EFH comment) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:14, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

This is an explicitly listed reason for requesting EFH, and I am not aware of any issues in CX Zoom's edits here that would call his trustworthiness into question, so I support. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 05:51, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Support temporary grant until January 1st 2024 as that is how long their sysop rights last. They aren’t actively involved enough edit filter wise to hold the rights after sysop expires. If a temporary grant isn’t possible, I oppose as filters are very sensitive. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 13:34, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

As I understand it you're requesting EFH on the basis that you'd like to learn about them to help on piwiki, however you only have one logged action and one edit there since January. IANAEFH but based on your current piwiki activity level, I'm hesitant about how useful this is likely to be to you -- do you intend to increase your activity there? Thanks, Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 17:12, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

That’s a good point. Until this question is answered, I’m opposed. This almost looks like WP:Hat collecting. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 17:24, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

piwiki is a low activity wiki, so I don't spend a lot of time there. When I became an admin about 1.5 years ago, I did some work reorganising things, and deleting obvious vandalism, now there's not much left. I still visit piwiki every 2-3 days to look out for vandals. In most cases, stewards took care of vandalism within an hour or so of vandalism, so I did not need to work. Once, I found a vandalised page that was not deleted, I chose to inform the steward/global admin who left the deleting work mid-way, because I could not delete the vandalised pages on other projects, and chose to not delete it myself because I feared it may interfere with any scripts they might be using for mass cleanup. As for activity level, I do intend to increase it, although that may not translate to admin-work because as I said, not a lot to do there for now. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 17:51, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate your honesty, but that doesn’t encourage me to support at all. Your very limited activity on the wiki you wish to add filters to, along with the fact that the sysop rights are temporary, makes me have to oppose. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 17:54, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I'll leave the boldvoting to the EFMs/EFHs, but it seems contradictory to request a very sensitive permission to work on filters at piwiki and then say that piwiki is a low activity wiki, so I don't spend a lot of time there and that there is not a lot [of admin work] to do there for now. Your response doesn't really alleviate my concerns, but I'll defer to others' judgement; if everybody else here is happy then it's fine by me. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 21:43, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Let me attempt to clarify, piwiki is a low activity wiki, but most of the activity that exists is basically IP vandals. Right now, I have little admin work to do except keeping them away, which is why I'm here. As admin, I already have the ability to set edit filters there, but I need to know better how to use one. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 22:22, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Support Trustworthy user, has a good reason for requesting the permission. Partofthemachine (talk) 22:09, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Did you read the discussion just above this? If so, could you provide some input further to help us reach consensus? Thanks! - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 22:11, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Support trustworthy, and sysop on a production project. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 08:56, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Neutral. I don't think you are hat collecting, but I do find the level of demonstrated need for EFH to be a bit low. piwiki doesn't have any abuse filters right now, and I would support after you have worked with edit filters (either on enwiki by suggesting fixes to filters for false positives or on piwiki by creation of filters) for some time and gained some experience. That said I am not opposed to requesting contents of filters on a per-filter basis. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 08:20, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nomination for Red-tailed hawk as EFM

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Red-tailed hawk (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) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb)}

Happy Canada Day everyone!

I would like to go ahead and nominate Red-tailed hawk (talk · contribs) for EFM. Over the past while, RTH has been coming to me with EFM change requests. As I've reviewed each proposed change, not only have I seen minimal errors, but the changes also are damage aware - meaning the changes often reflect an awareness of potential false positives they could create whether forward or reverse. Beyond that, their understanding of regex is now going beyond mine, and they have to explain regex to me to be able to put it in. This is the exact reason I went for adminship back in 2011 - heck I'm old. They also frequent EFFP to handle the colleterial that others have caused.

All that to say I think they are ready to take on the role and would handle it with both respect and understanding. -- Amanda (she/her) 18:41, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello all!

I'm Red-tailed Hawk. I joined Wikipedia in 2019 and I've been an edit filter helper since January, during which time I have become experienced with the abusefilter's syntax for regular expressions. Elsewhere, I'm an administrator on Wikimedia Commons and a VRT permissions agent. In my capacity as an EFH, I've mostly performed two tasks: helping EFMs to create and debug regex and responding to requests at WP:EFFP. If granted the Edit Filter Manager right, I would use it to write and implement changes to the abuse filter in response to false positive reports, in addition to performing the tasks that I have performed as an EFH.

I understand the sensitive nature of the edit filters, as well as the potential for bad changes to edit filters to negatively affect the project. With respect to account security, my account has two-factor authentication enabled and I've created a second account (Red-tailed sock) for use on public/shared/less-secure connections.

I would like to thank Amanda for pushing me towards making this request, and I gratefully accept the nomination. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:28, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Support, no issues. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 19:32, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

It appears there isn’t a support template @Zippybonzo. You may want to fix it. I would for you, but don’t want to WP:CANVASS. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 19:47, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

@Illusion Flame Can you fix it for me, as I'm short of time right now. Thanks, Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 20:41, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 20:55, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support. Thought they were already a EFM. Very competent and active with edit filters. Clear need. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 19:50, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support Why not? --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 14:01, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support. Red is a good user. SWinxy (talk) 13:21, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
• Suppose so'. You're wasting your time Red. Apply for adminship and let's get done with it. Lourdes 10:18, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
• Reluctant support, but only because you'd pass a RfA which would make this moot — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 11:08, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support. Though Red Tail should just run for RfA already! :P –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:04, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support I have a great amount of confidence in this user. Partofthemachine (talk) 19:23, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support More than enough competence and good sense for the permissions. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk
• Support but you should run for RfA! 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 08:00, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:10, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Abuse filter bypass that I noted earlier

There were some inflammatory edits by an IP that are now removed, but I noticed that in most of their talk page edits they substituted the letter C with the less-than symbol (<). This allowed them to say some rather unpleasant things to people on their talk pages.

Would it be possible for this bypass to be mitigated in some way? Assuming it isn't impossible due to something that I'm probably not thinking about.

Apologies in advance if this has already been discussed before, I am not familiar with the edit filter side of Wikipedia. Deauthorized. ^(talk) 00:32, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Do you recall which IP editor? An admin could take a peek at the edits, which would be helpful for adjusting the edit filters. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:39, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae It was 70.169.71.243. Sam Walton (talk) 09:37, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, looks like they replaced "c" with "<" in many different cuss words. Doesn't look particularly readable though. Is this common? May not be common enough to be worth updating the filter. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:48, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae: I've seen it a couple of times. Maybe it isn't enough for a filter update as of right now, but with how seemingly easy it is to do what they did I can't see how someone else wouldn't get the same idea.

Do you think you can keep track of it in the filter as a note? Just as a future reference. Deauthorized. ^(talk) 23:52, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is all that common. Replacing "c" with "(" would actually be a closer-looking substitution. Partofthemachine (talk) 01:12, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

filmcompanion.in

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Per the consensus here, I would suggest removal of filmcompanion.in from the spam blacklist, irrespective of whether we currently have an edit filter for that or not. We can continue to monitor the spamming, if at all it is still continuing, and then take a decision to create an edit filter. Requesting views on this. Thank you, Lourdes 03:57, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

• Unless there are implementation or performance concerns, I think it would be a good idea to have an edit filter set up to log addition of links to filmcompanion.in. That will help detect if spamming has resumed, and if it has, guide us as to whether the filter should be set to block addition of links by non-auto-confirmed editors or by non-extended-confirmed editors too. Abecedare (talk) 05:53, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

• +1. TrangaBellam (talk) 22:20, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

We already have link spam catching filters active here. I would suggest we don't have to wait for a specific filter to be created on filmcompanion for us to remove it from the blacklist... Pinging someone who works with the blacklist for their views. Lourdes 09:14, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not going to remove it from the blacklist, but I won't object if someone else removes it. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:28, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Abecedare, TrangaBellam, as mentioned, we have spam filters in place (not listing them here). Do we have a consensus to remove this title from the blacklist now? I am good to go on this. Lourdes 05:37, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Abecedare (talk) 05:46, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

AIV disruption

The filter that detects new users removing entries from AIV (I don't know the specific number) can be subverted by commenting out entries instead of completely removing them (example). Perhaps the filter could be modified to account for this? Partofthemachine (talk) 01:32, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

This is filter 768. — Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:43, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Since it's a private filter, I don't know how it operates or what change should be made to fix this issue. Partofthemachine (talk) 18:34, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the filter has still not been fixed. 23:16, 13 July 2023 (UTC) Partofthemachine (talk) 23:16, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Filter 1151: fix for false positive

Hi! In order to fix Wikipedia:Edit filter/False positives/Reports#Jay1661, could an EFM please make the following change to line 12 of filter 1151?

−

!(page_title irlike "sandbox|correct typos in one click|missing encyclopedic articles") &

+

!(page_title irlike "sandbox|correct typos in one click|missing encyclopedic articles|fix common mistakes") &

Best, — Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 14:34, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

This has been  Done by 0xDeadbeef. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 18:16, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Special:CreateAccount and WP:EFFP

I'm seeing a good number of users in recent days who are being directed to WP:EFFP after being denied a username or something like that (see two, recent examples). It doesn't appear that this is part of the abuse filter, but is there some page that's pointing people experiencing errors with account registration to WP:EFFP? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:13, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

(note: the two links appear to point to the same place)

Abuse filters do deal with account creation. The documentation page lists autocreateaccount and createaccount as possible values of the action variable.

See also this abuse log. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 06:10, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

That's coming from this edit to {{Edit filter warning}}. All "disallow" filters now show an inviting blue button leading to a pre-filled WP:EFFP report. It seems {{FULLPAGENAME}} is Special:CreateAccount, but the hits are actually logged under Special:UserLogin Possible fixes:

• Replace {{FULLPAGENAME}} with {{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Special:CreateAccount|Special:UserLogin|{{FULLPAGENAME}}}}, so at least the report makes sense.
• Just hide the inviting blue button, when {{FULLPAGENAME}} is Special:UserLogin, unless the message has "opted in" with fplink=yes.

The question is, do we want FP reports from username filters? Ideally, yes, but they haven't created an account yet, so they have to expose their IP just to make the report. Yes, this fact is disclosed, just as with any other edit, but still, I'm leaning towards hiding the button. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:51, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Is there a way to allow new editors to report a problem with the edit filter without making them disclose their IP? Potentially we could redirect them to WP:VRT instead. Partofthemachine (talk) 03:00, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

What if we redirected them to WP:ACC? - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 14:01, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I think take them to ACC as VRT can't actually create accounts to override the title blacklist/edit filters without the needed permissions. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 14:49, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, if you ask the VRT to create you an account, you will likely be directed to ACC anyway, so this is the logical next step. I’ll ping @Red-tailed hawk for possible comment, as they are the creator of this thread. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 15:27, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Disagree. The only thing stopping them from starting up right now right now is the name. Why make them wait for a response from ACC? Instead they should create an account (under maybe a less-preferred name) and request rename afterwards, if they really feel so inclined. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 18:32, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I don’t think it takes long for ACC to create an account. Arguably, it will take longer to request a rename then to get your preferred name from the outset. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 18:35, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Well, it used to be backlogged by months. I haven't paid attention recently. But the point is, even if the rename takes a while, they can start editing under the current name right away. The ACC route makes them wait to edit, unless they want to expose their IP. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 18:37, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

This is true. Maybe we give them a choice, they can begin editing now and request a rename, or use ACC. Is that okay with you? - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 18:45, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Really, I don't see why. The 47,409,603 "best" names are already taken. When Bob tries to register an account, he's going to be to Please choose a different name for "Bob", "Bob1", "Bob123", "Bob42", "Robert", and so on. If 887 (hist · log) also won't let him have "Bobobobobobobobobob", he should, again, pick another name. There's no need to interact with a human. I am, of course, talking about creataccount actions. FPs on autocreataccount are a much bigger problem, but we try to avoid disallowing autocreateaccount at all costs.

That said, now that I look them, Mediawiki:Abusefilter-disallowed-repetitious-username and Mediawiki:abusefilter-disallowed-random-typing-username could be a bit less BITEy. There's no need to mention words like "unconstructive" at all. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:59, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps something along the lines of: The username you selected is unavailable because [reason] please choose a different username. Your username is not permanent and can always be changed later by requesting a rename.

Which should encourage people to try again without human intervention, while also mitigating any concerns they have about needing to get their username perfect ab initio. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 01:19, 14 July 2023 (UTC)