View source for Wikipedia:Edit filter noticeboard

{{redirects|WP:EFN|information on the <nowiki>{{efn}} template</nowiki>|WP:EXPLNOTE}}
{{/Header}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 200K
|counter = 9
|algo = old(10d)
|archive = Wikipedia:Edit filter noticeboard/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{archive box
|index=
|auto=yes
|search=yes
|bot=Lowercase sigmabot III
|age=10
|units=days
|{{center|[[/Archive (permission requests)|Permissions archives]]}}
}}

== Suitability of 1163 -> disallow ==

* {{efl|1163}}
Could this one be suitable to move to disallow? The purpose is just repeated expressions, but with a throttle (without throttle caused too many FPs, see {{efl|2}}). Probably fine to unprivate it and make the title more descriptive. It was originally made as a general solution to a specific LTA, although its scope is broader, and most its hits are regular & rapid vandalism rather than LTA vandalism. The issue with the non-throttle EF 2 (discussed with {{u|Suffusion of Yellow}} a couple months ago) was primarily FPs when people were editing tables. That's less common in the samples of EF 1163 diffs I've checked. [[User:ProcrastinatingReader|ProcrastinatingReader]] ([[User talk:ProcrastinatingReader|talk]]) 16:13, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
*Don't think it needs to be private, and can have a useful description. — [[User:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#FF9933; font-weight:bold; font-family:monotype;">xaosflux</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#009933;">Talk</span>]]</sup> 01:41, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
* {{re|ProcrastinatingReader}} Still unsure about disallowing, but agree that it can be public. Anyone who can figure out ''that'' regex will be capable of finding 100 other ways to disrupt. [[User:Suffusion of Yellow|Suffusion of Yellow]] ([[User talk:Suffusion of Yellow|talk]]) 00:16, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

== Apparent mass FPs with "Blanking LTA" filter ==
* {{efl|1151}}

See [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:AbuseLog&wpSearchUser=Drainuther this lovely flooding of the filter log]... I'm pretty sure almost all of those hits are FPs. [[User:Taking Out The Trash|Taking Out The Trash]] ([[User talk:Taking Out The Trash|talk]]) 14:59, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
: {{re|Taking Out The Trash}} Thanks for reminding me about that filter. I've made a simple change, but it still needs a lot of work before setting to warn/disallow. [[User:Suffusion of Yellow|Suffusion of Yellow]] ([[User talk:Suffusion of Yellow|talk]]) 18:19, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

== Set filter 1176 to warn? ==

* {{efl|1176}} ("WP:NOTWALLOFSHAME reminder", public)

This filter will warn users who [[WP:NOTWALLOFSHAME|try to restore comments to user talk pages that had been removed by the user]]. I suspect most people are doing this out of simple ignorance, and it will only take ''one'' warning to get them to stop.

It will ''not'' warn if:
* The edit is modifying or removing any lines.
* The restored content contains a declined unblock, deletion template, or shared IP template. (in theory at least; I might have missed something but that's what [[WP:EF/FP]] is for)
* The edit summary doesn't start with "Undid" or "Reverted", or doesn't link to the "victim's" contributions. That is, if you're editing "[[User talk:Example]]", you must link to [[Special:Contributions/Example]] in order to be warned. So reverting a third-party removal should work fine.
* The edit is made using "real" [[WP:ROLLBACK]]. Nothing I can do about that unless [[:phab:T262157]] is implemented.

Possible message (mostly copied from {{sectionlink|Wikipedia:User pages|Removal of comments, notices, and warnings}}, see that page for attribution):
{{edit filter warning
|filter   = 1176
|action   = warn
|friendly = yes 
|text     = '''This edit seems to be restoring a comment to a user's talk page.'''

Policy does not prohibit users, whether registered or unregistered, from removing comments from {{strong|their own}} talk pages, although [[Help:Archiving a talk page|archiving]] is preferred. If a user removes material from their talk page, it is normally taken to mean that the user {{strong|has read}} and {{strong|is aware}} of its contents. There is no need to keep them on display, and usually users should not be forced to do so. It is often best to simply let the matter rest if the issues stop. If they do not, or they recur, then any record of past warnings and discussions can be found in the [[Help:Page history|page history]] if ever needed, and these [[Help:Diff|diffs]] are just as good evidence of previous matters.

For a list of exceptions, see {{sectionlink|Wikipedia:User pages|Removal of comments, notices, and warnings}}. If you believe it is appropriate to restore this content, please click "Publish changes" or "rollback" again, and [[Wikipedia:Edit filter/False positives|report this error]].
}}

As usual, feel free to suggest a better message.
[[User:Suffusion of Yellow|Suffusion of Yellow]] ([[User talk:Suffusion of Yellow|talk]]) 20:50, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

:The purpose seems sound to me, as does the filter design. I haven't checked the log scrupulously, but the few diffs I did check seemed like cases where a warn filter would've been appropriate. [[User:ProcrastinatingReader|ProcrastinatingReader]] ([[User talk:ProcrastinatingReader|talk]]) 13:36, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

== Edit filters for inappropriate edit summaries: Help Desk question that went unanswered ==

While looking through the Help Desk archives, I found [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2021_October_19#Filter_for_inappropriate_edit_summaries? this question] that went unanswered and I was wondering what the person could do.— [[User:Vchimpanzee|<span style="color:#070">Vchimpanzee</span>]]&nbsp;• [[User talk:Vchimpanzee|<span style="color:#aa4400"> talk</span>]]&nbsp;• [[Special:Contribs/Vchimpanzee|<span style="color:#700">contributions</span>]]&nbsp;•  17:29, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
:{{re|Vchimpanzee}} yes, for example public filter [[Special:AbuseFilter/225]] also checks the summary field. — [[User:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#FF9933; font-weight:bold; font-family:monotype;">xaosflux</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#009933;">Talk</span>]]</sup> 22:33, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
: There's also {{efl|1086}} which I never got around to finishing. The main problems is that "good" edits sometimes have "bad" edit summaries. Where I might say "reverted promotional puffery"; someone else might say "removed promotional bullshit", etc. [[User:Suffusion of Yellow|Suffusion of Yellow]] ([[User talk:Suffusion of Yellow|talk]]) 22:34, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
::Thanks. I'll let the person know.— [[User:Vchimpanzee|<span style="color:#070">Vchimpanzee</span>]]&nbsp;• [[User talk:Vchimpanzee|<span style="color:#aa4400"> talk</span>]]&nbsp;• [[Special:Contribs/Vchimpanzee|<span style="color:#700">contributions</span>]]&nbsp;•  22:45, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

== Please add 'shithole' to the bad word filters (12, 225, 380, 384) ==

Hi everyone. I just noticed that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=San_Francisco&curid=49728&diff=1059175341&oldid=1058930509&diffmode=source a vandal used the word 'shithole' to describe San Francisco]. Strangely, the word 'shithole' is not detected by any of the four edit filters mentioned in the title. The vandal is an IP so they should not be able to vandalise the Wikipedia page with the s-word. Can someone add the word 'shithole' to filters 12, 225, 380 and 384? Thanks. [[User:Train of Knowledge|Train of Knowledge]] ([[User talk:Train of Knowledge|Talk]]) 22:15, 7 December 2021 (UTC)