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 8 — Flags: disabled

Last changed at 08:51, 16 December 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 334 enabled filters and 48 stale filters with no hits in the past 30 days. Filter condition use is ~1069, out of a maximum of 2000. (). See also the profiling data and edit filter graphs.

Click here to start a new discussion thread

Setting 174 to disallow

Follow up from this discussion.

Are there any objections to setting 174 (hist · log) (New user removing XfD template) to disallow? This would hopefully help curb a fair amount of disruption and should have very few false positives. C F A 22:49, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

This makes sense to me and I don't see a problem with it. Ternera (talk) 17:30, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done; I've tried to add wording for good faith non-XCON editors trying to close XfDs to MediaWiki:Abusefilter-disallowed-removing-xfd-notice, feel free to suggest improvements. charlotte ^👸♥ 05:17, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

I have a couple of suggestions, one for the message and one for the filter itself:

For the message, I have this suggestion that should appear less bitey and included so it has been disallowed as well as some grammar fixes:

{{edit filter warning
| filter = 174
| action = disallow
| friendly = yes
| text = An automated filter has detected that you are attempting to remove an [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion|Articles for deletion]] or [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion|Miscellany for deletion]] notice from this page, so it has been disallowed. Please understand that removing it will not stop the discussion from taking place, and discussions should only be closed by experienced users. If you oppose the deletion, please comment at the respective page instead. If you did not remove any such notice, please [[Wikipedia:Edit filter/False positives|report this error]].
}}

Message preview

As for the filter itself, I would suggest this modification to reduce the condition limit a little, just below:

xfdRegex := "\{\{(?:AfD[M1]|Article for deletion|mfd)";

equals_to_any(page_namespace, 0, 2) &
!contains_any(user_groups, "extendedconfirmed", "sysop", "bot") &
removed_lines irlike xfdRegex &
!(added_lines irlike xfdRegex)

Please also remove the tag from the filter, as edits that are disallowed by filter 174 are never going to be tagged when prevented. Thanks. Codename Noreste 🤔 Talk 06:07, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done charlotte ^👸♥ 19:29, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. C F A 15:35, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Preventing unauthorized changes to edit filter configuration

Inexperienced users should not be making changes to Template:DatBot filters related to filters they may not be able to view, especially new or experimental filters that aren't stable, and there's potential for abuse by disruptive users. This is something I've been concerned about for a while. Generally, we would solve this with template protection or full protection, but that would prevent EFMs and EFHs from modifying the page, so I instead added a filter at 484 (hist · log). While this is a bit of a corner case right now, the runtime cost is very low, and I think there may be some similar use cases in the future. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 22:46, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I talked with DatGuy earlier, keeping him in the loop here. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 22:53, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I mean, feasibly template protection could work, the only problem that would be run into would be that all the (10?) non-admin EFMs would likely immediately request the template editor permission, which isn't a...bad idea (I've mentally floated proposing editinterface to eliminate the need for edit requests for filter messages, but frankly I don't have the confidence to put it up for an RfC given it would likely fail pretty badly, given it includes all the MediaWiki pages, not just the ones adding it would fix). Theoretically the granting guidelines are merely guidelines, and I can't think of a much better substitute for proof of technical experience than a community consensus showing such. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 23:37, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, adding the templateeditor right to EFMs is another option. However, it's not worth proposing based on a single example (the proposal would also likely fail), especially when we have a workaround that addresses the immediate need. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 00:01, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Most people don't edit that page, and the edit request process is always available too. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:41, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

I wondered in the past if it would make sense that: Those who can't see private filters, can't add them to {{DatBot filters}}. I guess Daniel had the same idea. Nobody (talk) 06:23, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

And FYI, there are no users that disruptively moved that edit filter configuration page, but it's better to be safe than sorry. Codename Noreste 🤔 Talk 21:19, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

The page has been indefinitely fully move protected for several years. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 21:31, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I'll also just note that why we need to enforce pseudo-edit protection that goes beyond EC users (that do not hold edit filter privileges) is because of Special:Diff/1259682905. Codename Noreste 🤔 Talk 16:59, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

A single unwanted edit? That's what revert is for. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:20, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

No. That user added a private filter while they can't see private filters. Codename Noreste 🤔 Talk 19:02, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

And? This section starts with the exciting title that this is needed to secure the "edit filter configuration" - this is a bot's page, it is not the configuration of the abusefilter. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:35, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

• I don't think we should be using the abusefilter as page protection for a single page. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:39, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

  Do you mean this as in "We shouldn't use an abusefilter for pseudo page protection" or "We shouldn't have a abusefilter for one specific page"? Nobody (talk) 18:42, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

  Both, but especially the later. Using it for an entire very broad class of pages is sometimes OK (e.g. the one against base userpages). — xaosflux ^Talk 10:48, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

  I agree with the later. With the former I'm not sure, since there isn't some kind of edit filter protection level. (And I don't think there will be, since a RfC about that would probably end with a bunch of "just become an admin and full protect it.") Nobody (talk) 11:59, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, there are some very specific use cases where this could make sense- and that one that applies to 48 million+ pages is an example. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:38, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

  If we had a way to allow edits by EFMs (see above), I would be inclined to agree. Without this filter in place, the risk is too high. We're dependent on DatBot to report abuse to AIV and there's significant history of disruptive editors modifying configuration (in the last year: User:DatBot/Filter reporter/Run, User:MDanielsBot/AIVStop, User:Lowercase sigmabot III/Shutoff, User:ClueBot NG/AngryOptin, User:GreenC bot/button, and User:Yapperbot/kill/FRS). Some specific LTAs will similarly remove, or attempt to remove, page protection requests. I also don't believe this will limited to a single page in the future. I think we can let it grow organically, though. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 20:27, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

  In fairness, those are quite uncommonly abused. So long as there are editors which notice the bot isn't running (there will usually be, if the bot is doing a useful task) they should reactivate. The shutoff pages should be quite accessible so any editor can turn it off if something goes wrong - autoconfirmed/extendedconfirmed are decent barriers to abuse IME.

  Immediately, like xaosflux, I don't see any issues in the history of Template:DatBot filters to suggest ECP isn't working. (If there were, I would prefer to use templateeditor protection on the page, and give the TE userright to the very few non-admin EFMs that don't already have it.) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:44, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

  This edit was an extended-confirmed user adding a private and experimental filter to the configuration (i.e., they had no idea what the filter did), while the filter was still being changed frequently. And nobody watching the page even blinked. Also, autoconfirmed is definitely not enough based on the history of those filters. For example, GreenC bot has been shut off twice recently by both an autoconfirmed user and an extended-confirmed user. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 17:12, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Per discussion above, I'd like to suggest disabling the filter and continuing to rely on ECP (or TE, if necessary) protection. Would that be OK with you, Daniel Quinlan? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:19, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Maybe with an edit notice that warns users, that only those who can see private filters, should modify private filter listings and misuse can get them page blocked? Nobody (talk) 12:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Let me spend some time pursuing a user right solution. I've been occupied with some other edit filter priorities the last several weeks. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 16:55, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Filter hit missed?

Why didn't this edit get hit by 1318 (hist · log)? Nobody (talk) 06:54, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't match because of the !(new_html rlike 'class="new" title="') condition. It looks like the most recent change added that condition. EggRoll97, could you please take a look? Daniel Quinlan (talk) 21:40, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I've updated the code with the fix. Thanks Daniel for pointing it out. Nobody (talk) 06:07, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

That is a bit more of a logic change than I was expecting. I updated the filter. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 07:04, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, was already out for the night when I got that ping. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 16:37, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Implement my suggestion to filter 707?

Courtesy link from October: Wikipedia:Edit filter noticeboard/Archive 14#c-Codename Noreste-20241008081700-Update to filter 707.

See the following log entries for edit filter 707 that are users who tried to withdraw their own reports, but were prevented:

• Special:AbuseLog/39450648
• Special:AbuseLog/39427289
• Special:AbuseLog/39249126
• Special:AbuseLog/39122043

Therefore, I would propose the following update for 707:

New filter code for 707

page_id == 26204397 /* [[WP:EFFPR]] */ & !("confirmed" in user_groups) & ( ( /* Prevent the removal or modification of headers */ contains_any( removed_lines, "__NONEWSECTIONLINK__", "__NOINDEX__", "<noinclude>", "{{Wikipedia:Edit filter/False positives/Header}}", "{{shortcut|WP:EF/FP/R|WP:EFFPR}}", "</noinclude>" ) ) | ( /* Page blanking or report meddling from non-confirmed users */ ( new_size < 300 & old_size > 300 | edit_delta < -250 ) & /* Allow users to withdraw their own report */  !( user_name in removed_lines & user_name in page_recent_contributors & edit_delta > -1500 ) ) )

Any questions or concerns regarding the new filter code? Thank you. Codename Noreste 🤔 Talk 04:18, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Like I said in the initial thread, I don't think users are going to be removing their reports very often. One of those is absolutely not a false positive, the others have abuse logs that show disruption to the encyclopedia, so there's not really a benefit to allowing these vandals to withdraw their report. Frankly, I don't see much of a point here. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 19:20, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

And your code also has the ability to let users remove their title and potentially other reports, which is still a form of vandalism. I agree with EggRoll97 here that this change would probably be not needed. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 20:29, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

I officially withdraw my filter suggestion. Codename Noreste 🤔 Talk 21:31, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Anyway, keep in mind that this was my attempt to exclude duplicate EFFPR reports made by legitimate users while disallowing unexplained removals by vandals. However, for now it's not the time to implement this experimental code. Codename Noreste 🤔 Talk 02:09, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

LTA check

Hey, would an EFM familiar with the LTAs being handled by filter 1094 give their input on whether this edit is likely the LTA being addressed with that condition? —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 21:16, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

It's just the addition of a filter-blacklisted source, and no it's not intended for any LTA. Codename Noreste 🤔 Talk 21:52, 13 December 2024 (UTC)