Wikipedia:Edit filter noticeboard
Wikipedia:Edit filter noticeboard/Header
 Archives |
| Index no archives yet (create) |
|
Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Suitability of 1163 -> disallow
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 2 (hist · log)). 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 It was originally made as a general solution to a specific LTA, although its scope is broader, and most its hits are regular & rapid vandalism rather than LTA vandalism.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 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. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:13, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
- Don't think it needs to be private, and can have a useful description. — xaosflux Talk 01:41, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
- @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. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 00:16, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
Apparent mass FPs with "Blanking LTA" filter
See this lovely flooding of the filter log... I'm pretty sure almost all of those hits are FPs. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 14:59, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- @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. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 18:19, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Set filter 1176 to warn?
This filter will warn users who 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 Wikipedia:User pages § Removal of comments, notices, and warnings, see that page for attribution):
| Your action has triggered an edit filter | 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 their own talk pages, although archiving is preferred. If a user removes material from their talk page, it is normally taken to mean that the user has read and 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 page history if ever needed, and these diffs are just as good evidence of previous matters. For a list of exceptions, see 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 report this error. |
As usual, feel free to suggest a better message. 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. 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 this question that went unanswered and I was wondering what the person could do.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:29, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Vchimpanzee: yes, for example public filter Special:AbuseFilter/225 also checks the summary field. — xaosflux Talk 22:33, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
- There's also 1086 (hist · log) 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. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:34, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'll let the person know.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:45, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Please add 'shithole' to the bad word filters (12, 225, 380, 384)
Hi everyone. I just noticed that 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. Train of Knowledge (Talk) 22:15, 7 December 2021 (UTC)