Wikipedia:Edit filter noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Welcome to the edit filter noticeboard
    Filter 1292 (new) — Actions: none; Flags: enabled,private; Pattern modified
    Last changed at 01:20, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

    Filter 614 — Pattern modified

    Last changed at 14:54, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

    Filter 54 — Flags: public; Pattern modified

    Last changed at 11:42, 26 March 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.



    Does the private edit filter wiki exist?[edit]

    I was looking through the archives of this page and I found a discussion about an edit filter private wiki (see [1]: the discussion is quite interesting). While I know that I wouldn't be able to participate, did this wiki ever happen, or did we just stick with the mailing list, because it seems that the archived discussion never reached a conclusion? – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 21:01, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I think we're stuck to the mailing list for now, and we're gonna have to restrict it to admins, EFHs and EFMs for security purposes. So it looks like we (both) cannot join until we have the EFH role at the very least. – 64andtim (talk) 21:23, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I know, but I was just curious about its existence. I know that we both can't get it yet, but if one of us gets EFH at some point, we could be in it, and it could be useful anyhow. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 23:40, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see anything that looks like "edit" or "filter" on the private wiki list. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:26, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't know that there was a place you could see all private wikimedia wikis. That answers my question. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 01:37, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This does not exist. I'd be in favor of such a thing, but given the overwhelmingly negative reaction to this similar proposal, it looks like it would be an uphill battle to get it created. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 02:42, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It might still be a good idea to try, as others have pointed out before: the mailing list is generally inactive, and organization might be easier on a private wiki. It seems to me that it would be a good idea, even though I can't join. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 03:27, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Is the mailing list inactive though? It's had 4 threads (10 messages) in the last month. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:15, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It isn't possible for me to know whether it is active currently (I'm not in it nor can I be in it even if I wanted to) but people in the previous thread said it was generally inactive. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 04:27, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not that it is inactive, but it is just hard to track. There are requests, concerns, and issues that can go unanswered for months, which would be much better suited if we had an actual ticket system, which the private wiki could help with. (at least gives you an idea of what issues were resolved and what were not)
    In terms of personal preference, we are already used to the threaded discussion format here on Wikipedia. We don't use mailing lists to handle WP:EFFPR requests do we? Making it a wiki makes it a better tier of communication.
    The need is clear. EFMs/EFHs/Admins need a way to communicate about LTAs, vandals, and contents of private edit filters. This is currently done through a non-ideal form of communication (mailing list, private messages, IRC, etc.) that doesn't get the job done as efficient as a private wiki. Sending an email to a mailing list requires considerable effort, and creates friction that potentially ward off seemingly trivial/simple questions that can otherwise turn into a useful discussion.
    Moving the activity on a mailing list to a private wiki is just better for effectiveness in handling matters related to private filters and LTAs. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 15:24, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Could a discord server also work? I know it's limited what you can do there, but probably easier to setup then a wiki. Nobody (talk) 15:35, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But this would be more than a struggle for us to propose this on Meta, and have our time wasted if most of that community simply rejects that proposal.
    Also, what about the thing that you send an email to the edit filters mailing list and you have to wait maybe days or months until your request gets accepted. Maybe we need a better way to "accept" emails from non-list/wiki members if their requests are related to creations of/additions to private or LTA filters. – 64andtim (talk) 16:45, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Honestly, this proposal has its pros and cons. However, it seems to me that most people who actively deal with edit filters here are onboard. If we're ready, I would be ok with supporting a proposal for a private edit filter wiki on meta. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 21:39, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree it is hard to track. I am not going to commit to writing an RfC for this yet. But if no one does in the next week or so I'll try to. Haven't written an RfC before. Philipnelson99 (talk) 15:02, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Huh. Maybe I spoke too soon when I said "uphill battle". There apparently is a private wiki for Italian admins, at https://sysop-it.wikipedia.org. This was created with minimal fuss at phab:T256545 after it:Wikipedia:Bar/Discussioni/Coordinamento delle informazioni sui vandalismi Was that ever even discussed on meta? Are we allowed to create a private wiki if there's only local consensus? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:31, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No idea if we have to discuss on meta first, but it seems unlikely that we have to discuss if that sysop wiki could form without any discussion. If that's the case, I would be all for a phab ticket. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 20:57, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We'd definitely need local consensus for creating such a private wiki. Anyone willing to draft a Rfc? I can maybe help edit. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 05:37, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm too tired to draft a request for comment because of all of my college studies, but I will edit it too first thing in the morning. – 64andtim (talk) 05:52, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I also have a bunch of work to do and haven't ever made or commented on an rfc so I'm not the best choice either. It's also late in the night already in my timezone. I'm happy to comment on an rfc though in the morning. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 05:59, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I actually don't know how much use a private edit filter wiki would be. Mailing lists aren't particularly friendly, but at least they go to an inbox that (presumably) the person otherwise monitors. A separate wiki might get some initial activity due to novelty, but I suspect it'd die out? In part because the community of EFM/EFHs used to be quite small (I'm not sure about now?). That said, I suppose it'd make discussing filters easier for WP:BEANS reasons. Right now, we'd have to just email each other. A ticketing system might be useful, but sounds like a private phab board serves better at that than a wiki. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:07, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A private phab broad would only be useful for edit filters, and it doesn't cover the discussion aspect well. (since they have different tickets with different threads, while a wiki can centralize discussion under a single page) Suffusion of Yellow also mentioned the idea of expanding it to discussion about LTAs per WP:DENY and WP:BEANS at the last discussion. A wiki could have more benefits than a phab broad. I suspect it'd die out? Maybe, or maybe not. I think it would be good if we can try. If people enable emails from notifications on the private wiki it could be remain active. (We can do something like {{@EFMs}} for time-sensitive issues) 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 11:03, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Set filter 1285 to disallow?[edit]

    • 1285 (hist · log) ("Removal of short description", public)

    See WP:EFR#Identify removal of short description, courtesy ping Uhai.

    Very low FP rate. While this might seem like a trivial thing; it's almost always accompanied by something worse. This is usually either just partial blanking that slips past the other filters, or users who have something to say, click the first available edit link at the top so they can share it with us, and remove anything that they don't understand. When reviewing, remember to view the log with saved changes only to see the new edits we'll be disallowing; this filter overlaps quite a bit with some blanking filters. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:22, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    In addition, see Special:AbuseLog/36985288; an IP address has removed the last two brackets of the SD template. It turns out they were trying to add "and YouTuber" but they didn’t realize that can break the short description template.
    Also, Special:AbuseLog/36984552 recently catched an IP address adding something non-constructive in lieu of the template. – 64andtim (talk) 20:37, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support as requester. Filter has a very low rate of false positives thanks to iteration by Suffusion of Yellow. Template:Short description's typical placement at the very top of article wikitext results in it being a common target for vandalism and disruption of the template can serve as an indicator of unconstructive edits that are not caught by other filters. Setting it to disallow would reduce the workload of recent changes patrollers and avoid the rarer cases of vandalism being missed altogether. Uhai (talk) 07:49, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd suggest switching to a warning first and seeing the extent to which that resolves the issues --DannyS712 (talk) 19:24, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd support setting it to disallow (or warning, if preferred). Low FPs and catching a lot of nonsense. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:49, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I also will support. Disallow seems pretty good to me but we could try warn or warn+tag first to see if that resolves the issue. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 21:27, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • In addition to what I said above, since those log entries are "accompanied with something worse", I support setting this to disallow. – 64andtim (talk) 14:05, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose disallow for one reason. If someone adds a SD by accident and then tries to remove it, it wouldn't work. (Example) (Which I don't think can be fixed using the filter). But I support warning. Nobody (talk) 15:09, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Even if they add it by accident, they should change it to something appropriate as the template shouldn't be removed once it's added to a page per Wikipedia:Short description: "all mainspace articles should have a short description". The example you linked is actually perfect for something that should have been disallowed as it was a suitable short description for the page. Furthermore, if the edit summary contains revert/rv/undid (like if they click the "undo" button) then the edit will be allowed to go through. Uhai (talk) 15:18, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Right, so maybe we should include some instructions, like if you wanted to leave an intentionally blank description, use {{short description|none}}? 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 15:48, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @0xDeadbeef The warning message above already contains these instructions. Uhai (talk) 16:19, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I can't read. (I've said this too many times) 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 16:20, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I was more thinking along the lines of "They're not sure what the right description is, based on our standards, so they're trying to leave it empty for someone who does." Nobody (talk) 16:20, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      It's a fair point but I'm not sure the situation where a non-confirmed, good faith editor accidentally adds the short description template and then tries to remove it (without undoing) is common enough to warrant concern over the filter disallowing. In the absolute worst case scenario, they could follow the link in the warning message to report to EFFP and have a patroller there remove the template from the page for them. Uhai (talk) 17:38, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      So set to disallow and see how many reports come in? Sounds good. Nobody (talk) 18:44, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @1AmNobody24 Not sure if this was meant to come across as sarcastic but I can say that I went through 1500 hits and didn't see a single instance where the removal was constructive. Even the example you linked I would not consider a false positive as the user should not have removed the short description and I have since added it back. It's unclear why they did this—maybe they thought removing it was the same as it being "none", which the warning message would clarify. Setting the filter to warn may stop some vandals, sure, but plenty just ignore or don't see the warning messages and click "publish" again. Often even good faith editors miss seeing the message and just think that they missed clicking the publish button or something.
      I would never advocate for a filter being set to disallow as a test to see the volume of reports. Most disallow filters will have some number of false positives and I believe the benefits of this filter being set to disallow would greatly outweigh the harm from false positives and that the volume of false positives and non-frivolous false positive reports should be very low. Uhai (talk) 19:16, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Not sarcastic at all. Just wanted to know how this type of Situation would be handled. Nobody (talk) 19:26, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      No problem. My apologies for the misinterpretation. Uhai (talk) 19:30, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Uhai: @DannyS712: @1AmNobody24: @Codename Noreste: It has been about a month and it seems like most people support disallow. Any progress in making the filter disallow? – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 01:16, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Nope. Still log-only. Codename Noreste 🤔 talk 01:12, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Yeah I know but I was asking the EFMs if they could change the filter to disallow because consensus clearly supports this change. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 01:19, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

     Done Set to disallow with the standard message, no prejudice against changing it back. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 21:01, 21 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]

    For now, until a custom disallow message is made, the generic disallow (and somewhat bitey) message is currently being used. Codename Noreste 🤔 talk 00:47, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have made a request for an interface page to be created. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 01:14, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The interface page has been created. @Suffusion of Yellow: @Rich Farmbrough: You can change the message used now and we'll be done. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 13:23, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, however the page name is incorrect. We need to move MediaWiki:Abusefilter-disallow-short-description to MediaWiki:Abusefilter-disallowed-short-description, I think. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 20:30, 22 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]
    My mistake. You are correct. Here is the request for the move. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 22:34, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Suffusion of Yellow: @Rich Farmbrough: The mediawiki page was moved to the correct title. It is ready to become the disallow message for this filter. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 17:57, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And this should be done as quickly as possible as the disallow message currently is undefined. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 18:02, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @DMacks or Oshwah: could you please change Special:AbuseFilter/1285's message to MediaWiki:Abusefilter-disallowed-short-description? The current one does not exist anymore. — Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 01:54, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
     Done. Might be nice for the AF-editor interface to check for that sort of nit (or maybe even autocomplete?). DMacks (talk) 03:47, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ...also, what's the difference between "System message to use for disallowing" (popup menu) and "Page name of other message" (textbox)? DMacks (talk) 03:49, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    DMacks - I've only seen the textbox version of this option, which just displays a textbox below the edit window to notify or warn a user. I would assume that the "pop-up menu" version/option either opens a pop-up or new window in the browser displaying a notification to the user that their change is disallowed, or uses java to display a notification in front of the editor to a user. Don't quote me, though; I've never seen this before. Is it a new thing, or am I just crazy? lol ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 06:30, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    DMacks - I'm not seeing the "(popup menu)" drop-down list at all. Do you have a screenshot? ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 06:33, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    DMacks (talk) 13:17, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Reactivated 1286[edit]

    See Wikipedia:Edit_filter_noticeboard/Archive_12#Rule_1286:_German_company_slander.

    I reactivated the rule now, because the person is back, see e.g. [2]. @64andtim, thanks for hint. -- seth (talk) 23:23, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    In addition, with my suggestion, I've asked them to de-specify the filter's name. Thank you. – 64andtim (talk) 00:37, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Error[edit]

    Elmira High School, Elmira, OR. Notable Alumni: Paddi Moyer, artisan, has several websites. She is legitimate. There’s no possible way to add her name and it is impossible to contact any of you. 50.45.245.19 (talk) 09:45, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    In order for her to be accepted as notable for the Notable alumni section, she needs to have a Wikipedia article. Nobody (talk) 09:49, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    No mention of the new guitar player Caleb Tucker 2600:1700:A170:3AF0:B0AE:7D02:4851:7C87 (talk) 23:38, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Please read WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC notability guidelines. Having "several websites" does not address notability criteria. OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:51, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    /Requests' archive[edit]

    As can be seen from the last 400 edits at Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested, the bot has, since 9 September 2023‎, been archiving everything into Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested/Archive 4 - this appears to be because of <this change> by @EEng.
    Should something be done about that? There are 21 archives.
    Note that I'm posting this here because the talk page for /Requests redirects here.2804:F14:809E:DF01:1968:B0BD:7883:4C14 (talk) 22:41, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    All I did was increase the max size of the archive pages. Why that caused it to jump to Archive 4 is beyond me. EEng 04:34, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Cluebot has its |numberstart= set to 4 (it doesn't use a counter system like {{User:MiszaBot/config}}, rather I think it figures out where it should archive every time), and since the archive size was increased enough to allow it to archive to the 4th archive, it did. Probably worth moving everything that ended up in 4 to 21 or 22 and upping numberstart. Aidan9382 (talk) 06:53, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
     Done EggRoll97 (talk) 04:35, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit filter helper nomination for 1AmNobody24[edit]

    1AmNobody24 (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 · te)

    The earliest closure has started. (refresh)

    For those of you that do not know him, 1AmNobody24 has been quite an active patroller of EFFPR spanning a little more than 700 edits in the past few months, and he would be a great asset to the edit filter team in order to review false positives that involve private filters, and to assist with improving and creating private filters. Some of his suggestions include Wikipedia:Edit filter noticeboard/Archive 12#Filter 1112, and Special:Permalink/1211462999#Improving Filter 1045.

    Outside of edit filters, he does a great job of reverting obvious vandalism and spam, has decent UAA, AFC, CSD and SPI logs, fixes references (including but not limited to bare URLs, CS1 errors), adds wikilinks, and has signed the confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information per this diff on Meta.

    Thank you for your consideration in whether or not you want to support him. Codename Noreste 🤔 talk 17:00, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Candidate, please indicate acceptance of this nomination here: I accept this nomination. Nobody (talk) 17:16, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


    • Support as the nominator. Codename Noreste 🤔 talk 17:00, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support: Trusted user who has a clear need. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 18:05, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Weak support: I'm slightly concerned by this, as non-EFH/EFM/sysop should not generally be actioning reports involving private filters, regardless of how obvious the result may be. The key problem is that the person responding doesn't have access to all relevant logs, nor access to the necessary filters to check the report in full. A similar idea applies to this one. While I think they could be responsible with EFH, I'm not a fan of granting it to someone who recently (within 2 months and even 1 month) has shown to be actioning reports as described. EggRoll97 (talk) 21:50, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @EggRoll97 I agree that most private filter hits should not be actioned by non-EFH/EFM, but those two reports I can easily explain why I responded. The first one one triggered the Rapid disruption private filter and filters 61 and 636 in the same attempt. When looking at the public filters hits, one can see the obvious reason why that attempt is disruptive. The second report is also for an attempt thar hit both a private and a public filter. By looking at the public hit, one can easily see what part got hit for looking like a email. These were both obvious cases of disruptive attempts and even if I don't see the private filters it's obvious that the hits weren't false positives. Nobody (talk) 05:27, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't necessarily agree with that line of thought, but I find myself leaning neutrally. EggRoll97 (talk) 20:44, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support: They have demonstrated the need, and I trust them with EFH.– DreamRimmer (talk) 13:06, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support has continuous involvement with filters with technical contributions. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 13:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The earliest closure has started. Would someone mind granting the perm as it seems that consensus agrees to grant? – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 17:39, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment: WP:EFH only talks about requesting the right for yourself, nothing about nominating others. This feels like it misses the candidate's own statement on why they want the right (even if it's obvious). That said, this reads like it was made using a template, so is this just undocumented? (Also the confidentiality agreement diff link is broken, as I've mentioned, please fix that)2804:F1...01:18F4 (talk) 21:02, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a tradition of nominating others, even if it isn't written down on the guidelines. About the statement on why they want the right, I don't really know if it is needed in this case but it could be. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 21:26, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll also concur that it doesn't matter too much if they nominate themselves, so long as they're available to answer questions from others. Ultimately the test that is applied is whether the candidate can be trusted, and while self-nominations are fully acceptable, some also like the reassurance that comes from a nominator. Also, confidentiality noticeboard diff updated. (I hope you don't mind my fixing that diff, @Codename Noreste:.) EggRoll97 (talk) 22:34, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    About fixing that diff, I've did that so marked as  Done; we're still awaiting an uninvolved admin to grant the role to the nominee. Codename Noreste 🤔 talk 23:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In addition to that, I have some of my own comments to say of what I've learned despite my two failed nominations:
    • Regardless if they're obvious or not, I also agree that reports that only involve private filters should be left to the ones that can view such log entries. I believe I have learned that the hard way.
    • Despite so many responses, account age probably matters (almost two years or more is recommended).
    • I'm not going to use scare quotes anymore as somebody mentioned, including if it's in the edit or summary.
    Codename Noreste 🤔 talk 23:42, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a tip. the {{tq}} template is usually used which is usually considered more friendly than quotes (Example vs "Example") 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 02:08, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Understood, and I will give myself a year at most to address these issues. In addition, I have written and proposed a filter by emailing its conditions to an EFM (1292 to be exact). Codename Noreste 🤔 talk 02:25, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit filter manager for EggRoll97[edit]

    There are 6 days, 13 hours, 42 minutes and 4 seconds until earliest closure. (refresh)

    Hello all. I am presenting myself here to the community today to request that I be granted edit filter manager rights as a non-administrator. I've thought about this for a bit, and it's 0xDeadbeef's response to my request for a bit of advice and his encouragement of boldness here that has pushed me to bite the metaphorical "bullet", so to speak, and write this up. (As a side note, I've hovered over the publish changes button now for about an hour, uncertain if everything is perfect yet.)

    Edit filter managers need demonstrated competency with the edit filter to be considered, as well as being trusted by the community to safely utilize the edit filter. As for trust, it's largely a factor that differs by person, though I of course will present that I have been an edit filter helper handling private filters for just over four months now without spilling the beans, and have signed the confidentiality agreement for non-public information (see m:Special:Diff/20180422). For technical competency, I have attached a few links below for both public and private filter changes I have requested. I've attempted to summarize the private filter changes as best I can without compromising private filter integrity.


    Public filter changes:

    Direct proposal for edits to a filter, implemented with modifications

    Not a direct proposal for editing, but discussion about what could be done to reduce the false positive probability

    Private filter changes:

    A filter concern about problems with excessive matching

    Some suggested improvements to an existing filter of simple changes

    General changes to a filter to avoid false positives from it on innocent edits


    Further, I have also passed by more than a few false positives reports that had small changes proposed to the filters that just needed an EFM to make them. This is something I would plan to work on a lot if granted the userright. The EFM right would also allow me to use filters filter 1 (public testing) and filter 2 (private testing) which can be more efficient than Special:AbuseFilter/test as it only tests the last 100 edits (though User:Suffusion of Yellow/FilterDebugger works wonders). I plan to extensively test any edit filter changes I implement, and with new edit filters as applicable, enable on log-only until fine-tuning has kept the false positive count to a low and reasonable degree. I am aware of the confidentiality expectations applicable to the private filters, and am aware of the extensive damage that edit filters can cause if recklessly implemented. I thank you for your consideration, and am fully open to and will respond to any questions and queries as applicable. EggRoll97 (talk) 00:11, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


    • Question: what type of public and/or private filters do you intend to create using your knowledge of regular expressions and edit filter syntax other than filters 1 and 2? Codename Noreste 🤔 talk 00:27, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Codename Noreste: I'd likely take inspiration from the requests at Wikipedia:Edit_filter/Requested, though I believe the bulk of my contribution would come through fine-tuning existing filters based on false positives and filter history. We do, after all, already have a massive number of filters, so I'd be more likely to test changes to an existing filter and merge them in when properly vetted, then to create a new filter, if possible. For reference, at the time of writing, we have over 300 enabled filters. (314, to be exact.) To answer your question directly though, I'd probably start by enabling Wikipedia:Edit_filter/Requested#No_rcats? in log-only and monitoring. EggRoll97 (talk) 00:35, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    EggRoll97, I can also email you a new proposed (and private) filter early if there might be consensus to promote you to EFM. Codename Noreste 🤔 talk 00:38, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Codename Noreste: Since it's a private filter request, if you send it to the mailing list, I can take a look at it alongside the other EFHs and EFMs. EggRoll97 (talk) 00:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    … and emailed! I'm waiting for my request to pass moderator approval. Codename Noreste 🤔 talk 00:50, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    May sound somewhat off-topic, but it would be useful if you are a moderator of that edit filter mailing list who can accept or deny (and respond to) requests. Codename Noreste 🤔 talk 00:52, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Good technical ability and experience. Will be a positive addition to the EFM team. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 02:09, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per 0xDeadbeef. I’ve seen them edit and test filters on a test wiki, and I am confident that they will not cause intense disruption to thousands of editors. Codename Noreste 🤔 talk 02:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]