Wikipedia:Edit filter noticeboard/Archive 13

Error
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)
 * 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)

No mention of the new guitar player Caleb Tucker 2600:1700:A170:3AF0:B0AE:7D02:4851:7C87 (talk) 23:38, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC notability guidelines. Having "several websites" does not address notability criteria. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 23:51, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

/Requests' archive
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 Edit filter/Requested/Archive 4 - this appears to be because of  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)
 * 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)
 * Cluebot has its  set to 4 (it doesn't use a counter system like, 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)
 * ✅ EggRoll97 (talk) 04:35, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Over the condition limit
Unless I'm missing something, it seems we're currently over the 1k condition limit (graph)? Though it doesn't seem any edits have been tagged as breaching the limot here ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:12, 2 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Ah, indeed I am missing something (phab) -- the limit is now 2k :) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:17, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yep, "data expands to fill available space". No harm in doing a bit of pruning if you see anything stale. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:20, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Edit filter helper nomination for 1AmNobody24
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 Edit filter noticeboard/Archive 12, and Special:Permalink/1211462999.

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 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)

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


 * Support as the nominator. Codename Noreste  🤔  talk  17:00, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support: Trusted user who has a clear need. –  Pharyngeal Implosive7  (talk)  18:05, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * @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)
 * I don't necessarily agree with that line of thought, but I find myself leaning neutrally. EggRoll97 (talk) 20:44, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support: They have demonstrated the need, and I trust them with EFH.– DreamRimmer (talk) 13:06, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support has continuous involvement with filters with technical contributions. 0x Deadbeef →∞ (talk to me) 13:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The earliest closure has started. Would someone mind granting the perm as it seems that consensus agrees to grant? –  Pharyngeal Implosive7  (talk)  17:39, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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. –  Pharyngeal Implosive7  (talk)  21:26, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 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, .) EggRoll97 (talk) 22:34, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * About fixing that diff, I've did that so marked as ✅; we're still awaiting an uninvolved admin to grant the role to the nominee. Codename Noreste  🤔  talk  23:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Just a tip. the tq template is usually used which is usually considered more friendly than quotes (Example vs "Example") 0x Deadbeef →∞ (talk to me) 02:08, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * ✅ per consensus above. — xaosflux  Talk 15:00, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Edit to filter
Their are a few promotional accounts whose names have 'corporations' in them instead of simply 'corporation' which is currently filtered out. I suggest that we should change the syntax to also log these accounts. We could change the related part of the regex to. –  Pharyngeal Implosive7  (talk)  00:29, 31 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Courtesy ping to Oshwah as the last editor to modify filter 54. Codename Noreste  🤔  talk  00:40, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi PharyngealImplosive7! I'll implement your suggestion. Stand by...  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   02:52, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * PharyngealImplosive7 - ✅.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   02:57, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks! –  Pharyngeal Implosive7  (talk)  03:07, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Filter 1162
I came across filter 1162, and I am wondering why there are no actions taken when the filter is triggered. Seems like this should be tagged at the very least. GrayStorm(Talk&#124;Contributions) 22:54, 3 April 2024 (UTC)


 * For now, I don't think that tagging non-admins placing block templates are necessary. Logging only works fine. Codename Noreste  🤔  talk  03:14, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok GrayStorm(Talk&#124;Contributions) 20:00, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Searching within filter code
Has anyone else had any problems with searching in filter code (as in, ctrl + f and no search box appearing)? I've tried clicking inside the code then pressing Ctrl+F, tried looking at different filters, tried restarting my computer, nothing. I don't think it's a script issue either, since I tried enabling safemode as well, and that didn't fix it, nor did trying to open the filter in an incognito window. Anyone know if maybe a recent update removed the ability or broke it? EggRoll97 (talk) 05:04, 4 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Generally speaking, ctrl+f is usually controlled by the browser, unless specifically overridden by the web page, for example in the case of visual editor. Are you just viewing a filter or trying to edit it? Can you link to a page giving you the problem? What skin and browser are you using? – Novem Linguae (talk) 05:23, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Just viewing, haven't had the EFM bit toggled on (yet, still about 19 hours left on that one). I've tried Special:AbuseFilter/3, Special:AbuseFilter/12, and Special:AbuseFilter/11, among others, though it seems to affect every filter. I haven't had any problems previously with Ctrl+F searching in the filter while viewing before, and my normal Ctrl+F works fine (but it doesn't search the filter code, only the filter notes and anything else on the page). I'm on Chrome 123.0.6312.106, and it says it's the newest version. Skin is Vector legacy (not 2022). EggRoll97 (talk) 05:47, 4 April 2024 (UTC) Ignore my rampant stupidity, it appears the normal Ctrl+F actually now searches the filter code too (it didn't used to, as far as I could tell). EggRoll97 (talk) 05:52, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The Ace editor does intercept CTRL-F, so long as you've focused on it first. At least, it's supposed to. Instead I get: . But oddly it does work on JavaScript pages. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:25, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I did a search among pages in the WP/Module/Template/MediaWiki namespaces, and nothing exact came up for "ext-searchbox.js" other than this page. Searching Phabricator brings up T251545, not necessarily for the AbuseFilter, but looks like that was a problem a while ago as well, but it was closed as invalid. EggRoll97 (talk) 21:18, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Edit filter manager for EggRoll97


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)
 * 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)
 * I'd likely take inspiration from the requests at 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 Edit_filter/Requested in log-only and monitoring. EggRoll97 (talk) 00:35, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * … and emailed! I'm waiting for my request to pass moderator approval. Codename Noreste  🤔  talk  00:50, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * Support. Good technical ability and experience. Will be a positive addition to the EFM team. 0x Deadbeef →∞ (talk to me) 02:09, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Support. Seems capable and trustworthy. –  Pharyngeal Implosive7  (talk)  17:09, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support There are no red flags. They have a good track record and technical ability. – DreamRimmer (talk) 18:02, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * OK, no objections here (I rarely enthusiastically support anything so consider that a positive). -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:39, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Support looks good to me --DannyS712 (talk) 00:56, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Mark filter 1157 as public?
Per Wikipedia:Edit filter noticeboard/Archive 10#1157, I agree that I'm not sure if we have to keep private, since the filter only logs non-admins/clerks/CheckUsers tagging sockpuppets. Any objections if this filter was to be marked as public to maintain consistency with ? Thanks. Codename Noreste 🤔  talk  23:38, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Courtesy pings: -- zzuuzz (talk) 08:43, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable to me, but I'll defer to — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 08:57, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping; I don't see any reason to keep it private. --Blablubbs (talk) 09:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Me neither. Plus the history doesn't seem to contain anything private. [Insert delay for any further comments]. -- zzuuzz (talk) 09:52, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Also support on making it public. EggRoll97 (talk) 17:37, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay, if there are no objections before then I'll made the filter public on 5 April 2024 (based on UTC) so in just under 48 hours, giving a further delay in case there are others who haven't seen this thread yet (which I think is what zzuuzz was suggestion) --DannyS712 (talk) 00:53, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * CC other users who have edited the filter: @L235, @Tamzin, @Oshwah, @Galobtter --DannyS712 (talk) 00:54, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * No objections from me; make it public. :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   01:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * No objections. Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 01:14, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅, now public: Special:AbuseFilter/history/1157/diff/prev/31865 --DannyS712 (talk) 01:34, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Is there any reason why block-autopromote is unavaliable?
Just a random thought, but I randomly found MediaWiki:Abusefilter-autopromote-blocked, which I believe blocks you and disallows the edit. However, we don't use on this wiki at least because it is "unavailable" for some reason. Any idea why? –  Pharyngeal Implosive7  (talk)  01:15, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not really "unavailable". It's available, and used on a few projects if I remember correctly, but it's considered a restricted action because if someone does something that merits that, they probably should just be blocked by an admin instead. The filters also don't auto-block because the idea in this project is that all blocks should be made by an admin, similarly to how userrights should be managed by admins in the community's view. It was discussed somewhere if I recall correctly. EggRoll97 (talk) 01:19, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I think the message was more about autopromotion being blocked? It would revoke or prevent them to be autoconfirmed 0x Deadbeef →∞ (talk to me) 01:21, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * When you put it that way, it makes more sense and blocking someone from getting the confirmed right does indeed seem kind of extreme. –  Pharyngeal Implosive7  (talk)  01:26, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Correct. There isn't an automated edit filter action that blocks the user from editing. This template refers to when the "Prevent the user from performing the action in question" and "Revoke the user's autoconfirmed status" actions are used within an edit filter.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   03:01, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Just a thought, but this might be useful for something like filter, that throttles page moves and might revoke autoconfirmed from page move vandals? This is just an assumption because I can’t see the private filters and it seems that disallow and throttle work just fine because this hasn’t been brought up recently as far as I know. Again, this is just a thought and it’s fine if it doesn’t work for some reason. –  Pharyngeal Implosive7  (talk)  18:27, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think blocking autoconfirmed promotion for a few days is a good idea; if we do this, we need to warn the user first that attempting the page move again may result in their autoconfirmed status being revoked. Throttling and disallowing page moves seem to work fine. Codename Noreste  🤔  talk  20:11, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah that’s what I thought. I totally agree with you. –  Pharyngeal Implosive7  (talk)  20:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Page-move vandalism isn't as much of a thing these days, though every now and then someone goes on a spree. Most (but not all) of the filter 68 hits look more like clueless people fumbling around and making a mess. Probably good that we slow them down, but this certainly isn't enough of a problem to justify such drastic measures. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 00:13, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

FWIW it looks like it's been used a few times in public filers:

MariaDB [enwiki_p]> select afh_filter,afh_timestamp from abuse_filter_history where afh_actions like "%blockautopromote%" order by afh_timestamp desc; +++ +++ +++ 17 rows in set (0.044 sec)
 * afh_filter | afh_timestamp |
 * 1028 | 20200212151256 |
 * 201 | 20120810005233 |
 * 201 | 20120810005150 |
 * 201 | 20110916071759 |
 * 201 | 20110827000025 |
 * 201 | 20110306091844 |
 * 201 | 20110306091603 |
 * 1 | 20091203195833 |
 * 1 | 20091203195531 |
 * 54 | 20090318191118 |
 * 54 | 20090318190355 |
 * 54 | 20090318190101 |
 * 54 | 20090318185315 |
 * 54 | 20090318183632 |
 * 54 | 20090318183119 |
 * 54 | 20090318175241 |
 * 1 | 20090318012627 |

The 2020 use was definitely a mis-click. I don't know how to search the private filter history short of sceen-scraping Special:AbuseFilter/history. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 00:31, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I believe the most famous use of blockautopromote, and why there might or should be some nervousness about people using it today, indeed it's a lesson for all time, can be found in the earliest logs of filter 58. Public version starts approximately here -- zzuuzz (talk) 00:53, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * An example linked from somewhere else(from here), just for curiosity: 10:51, 31 May 2010 – 2804:F1...17:B3C2 (talk) 01:50, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah nvm, zzuuzz's link had a bunch, just have to remove the  part of the link. – 2804:F1...17:B3C2 (talk) 02:01, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Here is an analysis of public filter uses of the action. As seen here, block-autopromote was used for some sort of LTA again just for curiosity. It was also just used for some tests and to block page move vandals. –  Pharyngeal Implosive7  (talk)  02:49, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Extending time for EFH discussions
Historically, EFH has been considered a relatively high trust role. I appreciate opinions on this can vary, and so the "need" to grant has been decided by precedence at this board, and evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Since we do not evaluate EFH discussions against a set criteria (like we do TE in Special:Permalink/1215492787, for example), participation is quite important.

Since many editors in the edit-filter community aren't around every day, to maximise participation, I'd like to suggest we extend the time for EFH discussions to the standard 7 days. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:18, 30 March 2024 (UTC)


 * If we'd want participation, we need to formulate explicit requirements for how many !votes are needed as minimum participation. A low participation pass for EFH was actually me from a year ago with only 4 support. 0x Deadbeef →∞ (talk to me) 12:23, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Though if you count EFH/EFM !votes differently, I suppose it would be different.. 0x Deadbeef →∞ (talk to me) 12:29, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I think that determination may be up to the closer. I personally wouldn't say it's low participation simply because your request had support from SoY, zzuuzz, Compassionate727 and Red-tailed hawk. It was obviously passing even if left open for more comments. That's in part because the number of active EFMs was quite small, and those two have been persistently dedicated to filters. But also in part because SoY and zzuuzz have criteria which I think roughly matches this board's criteria holistically. As a combination of both factors, I personally would tend to trust their judgement on a request, and I imagine others here do too. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:32, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think low participation is really a thing on this noticeboard. It's a very small community of people that have the desire and technical knowledge to modify the filters. There are millions of accounts on this site. Of those, 864 at the time of writing are administrators. A lot of the edit filter managers are admins, and didn't go through a consensus !vote on EFN, but rather self-granted as admins. Depending on their interests, they may or may not be involved in edit filters to a deep degree, they may have just given themselves the bit for one edit and forgotten to take it off. Out of the 139 EFMs, I counted at one point and a little over 10 aren't admins. Next, there are 23 edit filter helpers. That means overall, there are maybe 30 non-admins plus a few unflagged who are involved in edit filters. Add in the few admins who are also involved here, and we maybe have 40-50 people in the edit filter "community". I'm sure my count is probably a bit off, but those who toil and tinker with the edit filters aren't a large community, so unless there's serious concerns about someone as a candidate, I don't see that much of a problem with low participation. EggRoll97 (talk) 15:56, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I guess on this note, it's worth also considering the topic Barkeep49 brought up on the talk page regarding nominations for EFM rights. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:25, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It'd be real nice to stop these third party nominations for both EFH and EFM, at least those that are absent the nominee providing a few sentences of why they need the role or what benefit they can bring. The request for 1AmNobody24 passed without any writings from them besides a four word acceptance and a response to a specific point brought up in an oppose !vote. I'm sure some rationale was included in Codename Noreste's nomination after the two of them had a discussion who-knows-where, but we should really be hearing from the nominees themselves in these discussions.
 * And EFH discussions should indeed be open for at least seven days. Uhai (talk) 13:48, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Totally agreed. This is a process where it makes sense that self-noms are a norm.
 * Extending EFH to seven days also makes sense as we have not failed to process the backlog. The need for EFH will be decreased for each additional EFH we take. 0x Deadbeef →∞ (talk to me) 14:07, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't see any objections of extending EFH nominations to a week, but only self-nominations are allowed? Codename Noreste  🤔  talk  14:27, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * well, what is the reason we should allow third-party noms? 0x Deadbeef →∞ (talk to me) 14:29, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't see any reason not to allow third party nominations, is that EFH nomination for 1AmNobody24 the last third party nomination a user may do? Codename Noreste  🤔  talk  14:31, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * If there is consensus to disallow. The reason for not allowing third-party noms has been said above: we should really be hearing from the nominees themselves in these discussions. <span style="font-family:Iosevka,monospace">0x Deadbeef →∞ (talk to me) 14:55, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. I also don't see any objection to not allow third party nominations, but we are going to need consensus for that and to extend the EFH nomination for one week, just like running for EFM. Codename Noreste  🤔  talk  15:21, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd also like to introduce another possibility where non self-noms are allowed but the nominee must also add a few extra sentences at least with some sort of rationale so we can hear from them too. –  Pharyngeal Implosive7  (talk)  00:04, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * For example, this might include: 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". Codename Noreste  🤔  talk  00:41, 31 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Support amending earliest close time to 1 week for efh. In the future may also want to consider requiring at least one bolded !vote from an efm. No efm participation, or low efm/efh participation in the discussion, suggests to me that the discussion should be open longer so those folks can chime in. – Novem Linguae (talk) 15:41, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * A self-nom rule also seems fine to me. – Novem Linguae (talk) 16:22, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support on extending to one week, and on requiring self-noms. I don't think third-party nominations are really very helpful here. EggRoll97 (talk) 15:56, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Per the discussion above the two supporting votes, I support both the one week extension and the self-nomination requirement. Codename Noreste  🤔  talk  16:02, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support both the only self-noms (unless the nominee also gives some sort of rationale) and the extension to 1 week. –  Pharyngeal Implosive7  (talk)  16:08, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support both extending to 1 week and only self-nominations(for EFH and EFM), more opportunity for input from people who aren't here so often can only do good, and self-noms are easier than having to coordinate third-party nominations with the candidate so they can provide rationale. – user in the /32 - currently 2804:F1...54:171E (talk) 22:45, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support one week. I also think we need a statement from any applicant, and I'll just say that I don't like 3rd party nominations for this role. Just ask for a support statement instead. (I can vaguely imagine scenarios where some highly experienced user might want to introduce an application, but it can probably be done with just a supporting statement). I'd also support some type of quorum, though I think admins closing these applications should probably know what they're doing here, and not rush to close something just because it's past the due date. Being a minor venue, I think admins should be using a wide discretion when it comes to process here. In a sense, the closing admin also needs to be a supporter and not just a closing-bot, which should add to the quorum. -- zzuuzz (talk) 00:23, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * If your changes pass, such as adding a quorum, someone should also update the policy on these elections as they will be quite out of date otherwise. –  Pharyngeal Implosive7  (talk)  00:46, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support one week earliest closure --DannyS712 (talk) 06:19, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Filter 1291
Would it be possible to add a check for  to ? This would allow it to catch edits like Special:Diff/1217679181 (where one instance of Example Article Name still needs replacing), in addition to edits like Special:AbuseLog/37383189. Pinging as the filter’s creator.

All the best. &zwj;—&zwj; a smart kitten <sub style="color:#595959">[  meow ] 18:01, 7 April 2024 (UTC)


 * @A smart kitten ✅ Special:AbuseFilter/history/1291/diff/prev/31935 --DannyS712 (talk) 18:12, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

New report to check before going to EFR
Please check out User:Suffusion of Yellow/Commonly reverted words and phrases. Still working out the details, but likely any drive-by vandalism "worth" filtering will be there. Let me know what needs explaining. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:19, 2 April 2024 (UTC)


 * That's great! Will be useful when some of these inevitably come up at WP:EFR. Philipnelson99 (talk) 20:41, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Filter 1301
Filter has been recently created by an admin to prevent users from editing other users' committed identity templates on user pages, but I noticed some possible issues:

1. The  condition should either be changed to   or removed; the former global group doesn't actually exist at all. 2. The generic disallow message should either be changed or removed, since it can be bitey to newer users and irritating to experienced users.

Any opinions or suggestions? Thank you. Codename Noreste 🤔  𝙇𝙖 𝙎𝙪𝙢𝙖  02:08, 12 April 2024 (UTC)


 * cc – Novem Linguae  (talk) 02:40, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Was this in response to some specific incident? I don't see the need for a filter here; the only people verifying committed identities should be WP:T&S, and I'd hope they check the page history to see who added the template. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 03:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I added it in response to this page protection request. I also hope T&S runs WikiBlame (or something similar) to find the edit that added an identity when handling requests as well, but "hope" isn't exactly a description of defense in depth. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 03:53, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Filters aren't really security measures. A truly determined person could find a way around any of them. (I will email you one trick if you're curious.) Now that would be very difficult, but we're talking someone capable of conducting a social engineering attack against the T&S team of a ton-ten website. We're not talking about a drive-by vandal. What is a security measure is the protection against editing .js and .css pages; if doesn't want anyone editing their committed identity or GPG key, they can wrap it in   and put it at something like User:Aditya-an11/key.js. There are also several BEANSy ways in which this filter could be exploited by vandals. Again, I'll email you if you're curious. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 04:19, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think they have email enabled, so they'll have to email you instead. Codename Noreste  🤔  𝙇𝙖 𝙎𝙪𝙢𝙖  04:25, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I already have his email, and just sent one. But I said "One weird trick" in the subject, so it probably got spam-filtered... Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 04:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @, I haven't received your mail. I am quite unsure on how I didn't got the mail - I have enabled email in my preferences. Could it be that I am a new user?
 * Anyways, as I have mailed you -- as directed by @Codename Noreste. Aditya-an11 (talk) 07:28, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Aditya-an11 pretty sure Suffusion was talking about emailing Daniel Quinlan, not you. – 143.208.238.195 (talk) 08:20, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my bad. I have crossed it out Aditya-an11 (talk) 08:58, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Responding to your email, there isn't much you can do to protect against someone who has access to your account from modifying the page. Full protection won't really work; if the attacker says "Hey, I need to update my key, can you unprotect the page for bit" it's highly unlikely any admin would argue. You'll just have to trust that whoever is verifying your identity is clueful enough to check timestamps. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 18:20, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * And I just realized that if the account is compromised, the attacker "is" the victim as far as MediaWiki knows, and will of course bypass the filter. If you plan on using anything in your userspace to prove your identity after a compromise, you'd better, again, hope, that someone goes looking for the oldest edit. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 04:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * But the only things I have are that I have my committed identity listed on my local and global user pages (I've recently updated it minutes ago), and my account has a very strong password and has 2FA enabled globally.Only my alternate account has a very strong password but can only be used in an emergency or in unsecure areas where I can't access my main. Codename Noreste  🤔  𝙇𝙖 𝙎𝙪𝙢𝙖  04:52, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The point is that if someone gains your password and 2FA secret, and then they change your committed identity, this will be recorded as an edit coming from you. The only thing that will be sus is the fact that "you" changed "your" identity recently. If T&S has to distinguish between two people both claiming to be you ( if only Brian had known about cryptographic hashes... ), it's the oldest hash that they'd have to look at. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 05:06, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * If the user has additional permissions, Wikipedia is definitely impacted. I'll respond to your email tomorrow or this weekend. Thanks for the additional context. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 05:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * This is a big drawback that I think this filter has. Not to mention that @Suffusion of Yellow believes that these filters could be exploited by vandals. And this is concerning to me....
 * Sure, the filter seems to provide basic protection, but I feel this fails when my account gets breached OR the person who is vandalising have apt technical knowledge to exploit it. Going by the case of Wikipedia Signpost/2007-05-14/Committed identity, both the situation are probably.
 * These security concerns was partly what prompted me to ask for full page protection in the first place. "Full" as in even if a vandal gets access to my account, they can't edit the my committed-identity page. Only the admins can. And that's way more reassuring and secure than the filter. While I do understand this may not be common, I do see people page protecting their committed identity pages (like to which I cited here). Though, in all fairness, I am a new user and could be wrong. I would be happy if get any guidance on how to maturely approach this issue. Aditya-an11 (talk) 07:49, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks,  is the appropriate group, I'll update the filter. As far as the message goes, this filter should almost never match, but I'm open to suggestions. Also, if the default disallow message is considered bitey for reasons (beyond it being non-specific), we should discuss making it less bitey under a new topic. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 04:02, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Correct me if I'm wrong, but the filter also prevents any editing of any user page containing the template, which is likely to create its own problems (maybe SoY has already pointed this out by email). I took a look at the RFPP request and would say that of course protection can be used for 'important' subpages. I've had my own PGP sub-page semi-protected since I became an admin, and I'm sure I've even fully protected others' key pages, if that's what they asked for (semi is usually enough though, IMO). As SoY points out, timestamps are everything when it comes to key verification. -- zzuuzz (talk) 07:39, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I'd recommend making that filter private right now even if it didn't change from what it currently is(or it's ultimately disabled), if there's any worry of people trying to bypass it - isn't that the main reason filters are privated? @Zzuuzz, it's not every edit, though it is every user page yes. – 143.208.238.195 (talk) 07:54, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're right. What would be prohibited is something like courtesy blanking, replacing a user page with a sock tag or a banned notice (or reverting such), along with removing bad content placed by the user near the template. I'm still sceptical about the filter, or anyone relying on it, so will let someone else make that judgement about its visibility. -- zzuuzz (talk) 08:23, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * At this point, since you pretty much said it as an example, I might as well say it, the filter, as a side effect, gives all users the capability of fully protecting specific lines of their choice from non-admin users - this is not something which should be given lightly or even automatically unless it's really good automation (not the case with the way the filter currently is) because ill intentioned users exist. – 143.208.238.195 (talk) 08:43, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's what I had in mind, e.g. Yeah, we could tweak the regex so that they can only talk about how much  15 A B00BFACE, but is it worth the trouble? I've already though up about four ways to bypass this filter (again, emailed DQ, some of them are sort of relevant to other filters). Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 18:03, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Bbb23, who is a much more frequent target for vandals, would not be exempt from that either. <span style="font-family:Iosevka,monospace">0x Deadbeef →∞ (talk to me) 15:21, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I've disabled the filter and set it to private for now. I think it might be better to integrate it into a more generalized (and probably private) filter for user page vandalism and shenanigans, one that flags edits rather than disallowing them. I'd also like to better address some weaknesses in the implementation (that was always the plan).
 * One option we might want to consider is designating a specific location (or locations) for committed identity information, PGP keys, etc. and protecting it similarly to .css and .js files. I think the concerns about the filter allowing users to "protect" specific lines are somewhat overblown as this is already possible with personal .css, .js, and .json pages and this hasn't been a major issue. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 19:43, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

[URGENT] Education Program needs to be exempted from filters
See this filter log, and this is something that I've seen before. Members or coordinators of the education program getting caught up in filters is probably one of the worst possible false positives and should be addressed immediately. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 17:38, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Courtesy ping to Ohnoitsjamie as the last editor of the miscellaneous article/draft/talk LTA filter. Codename Noreste  🤔  𝙇𝙖 𝙎𝙪𝙢𝙖  18:14, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * by . Nobody  ( talk ) 20:06, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Nobody; I fixed it, then was unable to figure out where this ping originally came from. OhNo itsJamie Talk 20:11, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Set filter 1294 to disallow

 * ("Test edits and low effort vandalism", public)

Standard notification. Split out of, , and , with a handful of additions. No FPs in the few dozen "new" matches. I'm not going to add this to Template:DatBot filters. In fact, that was part of the reason for the split. I doubt that users adding "lol" and "fdshksdjfhskdjdshfflshjfsldkhfdslkhsfd" are really going to put in the effort to work around the filters, so let's have a bit less clutter at WP:AIV/TB2. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 00:36, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Understood. This filter is targeted towards your run-of-the-mill everyday vandal who doesn't use much effort to bypass this filter and/or trigger and/or  instead.Also, this might be different from .  Codename Noreste  🤔  𝙇𝙖 𝙎𝙪𝙢𝙖  00:50, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 664 is warn-only, though I haven't looked through the log to see if it can be set to disallow. 1296/1297 is an experiment that might go nowhere. 1297 is not going to be easy to maintain and IMO a filter that complicated is only justifiable if keeps out a huge amount of vandalism. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 00:59, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * No problems here, seems solid from a glance at the filter. EggRoll97 (talk) 05:02, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Need a change for #867
After noticing this, I suggest excluding undos and reverts from being logged onto the edit filter log by #867. Toadette ( Let's talk together! ) 14:47, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * . EggRoll97 (talk) 17:56, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Not sure if that's a good idea. After an AFD was closed as "redirect", it's common that someone will come back much later and try to undo the result. I see no harm in logging that. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 18:47, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Self-reverted for now, though anti-vandalism isn't exactly the scope of this filter. For example, Special:Diff/1218898491 isn't a large page creation, it's reverting redirect vandalism. EggRoll97 (talk) 20:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Sure but there's no harm in a log-only filter catching a few out-of-scope edits. If I understand this change correctly, around next WP:THURSDAY you'll be able to write something like   to exclude reverts of recent edits. But even that would exclude rapid edit warring to overturn an AFD. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:59, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Is this worth changing the 'Numeric change without summary' filter?
Until WP:VPT#I don't understand these edit summaries (task: T360164) is fixed, would it be worth it to change the pattern to match these cases too? I'm not really sure how to check how often edits like that are happening and not getting logged by the filter, other than manually looking at Special:RecentChanges (I also don't know what other filter this might be affecting), but I figured I'd point it out and ask anyways. – 143.208.239.226 (talk) 02:32, 22 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks, tweaked. Found one example out of the last 1000 mobile app edits. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 03:56, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Prepare for Armageddon: temporary accounts
(Topic name is a reference to one of my favorite error messages.)

The 15 April The Tech News weekly summary includes this blurb: "Volunteer developers are kindly asked to update the code of their tools and features to handle temporary accounts. Learn more"

Of course, it's not just code that will need to be updated. A good number of edit filters are going to need to be updated. I don't think we necessarily want or need to update anything before it happens, but I'd suggest enumerating the variables and functions most likely to be affected and start building a list of filters expected to require updates.

(This may have been discussed before, but I didn't immediately find anything in the archive.) Daniel Quinlan (talk) 23:57, 15 April 2024 (UTC)


 * If we don't have anything to feed to, that will be bad, and some filters will have to just be disabled. But otherwise, so long as temp accounts are never autoconfirmed, and have an edit count and age that stays at zero or null, I don't think a huge number of filters will need updating. If   and   start incrementing, then we might want to check   in some filters. I'd prefer to see how temp-account users act first. Will the vandals clear cookies after every edit? Or will most of them be too clueless? No way to know right now. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 01:04, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm hoping that the IP variables are unaffected, but I haven't dug into that. I was most concerned about  which is definitely used as an IP test. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 01:47, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * One thing we might have to consider is this: If people start crying "We're being flooded with vandalism! We need to require registration for everyone!" an alternative might be making the filters much harsher for temp users. As in, you add "gay" to a BLP, in any context, and you're told "you have to register an account to do that". You edit more than three pages in ten minutes: "sorry, either wait ten minutes or register an account". And so on. I hope it doesn't come to that, but disabling all logged out editing would be a greater loss, I think. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 02:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah I agree with you as we have a lot of productive IP users. I think that once this gets implemented, using  (as long as the temp accounts can't become confirmed or get other user permissions but that should happen anyways) would work quite well to prevent new users and the new temp account issues. –  Pharyngeal Implosive7   (talk)  02:39, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It looks like the new  variable will probably work well for most simple filters.
 * We also need to understand how this affects filters that use the IP in throttling actions.
 * It might also be a good time to consider whether there are any additional variables or functions that could help alleviate any losses in functionality. There are "hacks" such as trying to detect reverts by looking at the edit summary. That example might not be something that wants to be fixed sooner because of temporary accounts, but are there other hacks that might be more important to replace with a better solution due to temporary accounts? Daniel Quinlan (talk) 06:29, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I think, I hope, that IP masking causing that level of disruption would convince the WMF to roll it back at least locally. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 12:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The WMF legal department is requiring IP masking. I do not anticipate a rollback. – Novem Linguae (talk) 00:12, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Damn, you're right... Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 03:49, 23 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Relevant to the questions above by Daniel and Suffusion: For developers#Updating AbuseFilter filters – 143.208.236.191 (talk) 05:34, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Nice find, looks like that just got added several days ago. I'm going to need to reread all of that. There are about a dozen enabled filters using  and , including some LTA filters, so hopefully T357772 ends up in a good place. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 06:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I'll just raise Special:AbuseFilter/1283. It seems to be the only active filter of its type (we've previously used this technique in several now-inactive filters). -- zzuuzz (talk) 06:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Set filter 1076 to warn
("Draftified article more than 180 days old")

Has some inevitable false positives due to AfDs, but people closing those know what they're doing. Otherwise there are a lot of draftifications of old articles by people who either don't realize how old the page is, don't know they're not supposed to do that, or both, and it would be nice if they could be warned as they do it, not later if someone happens to notice. * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun... 03:43, 20 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I agree, so I support warning . Changed to neutral because of the amount of FPs. Also note that if this passes, we'll have to make a new and specialized warning template but I'm sure you already know that... –  Pharyngeal Implosive7  (talk)  16:36, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Also support. EggRoll97 (talk) 17:56, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm on the leaning side of opposing due to the sheer amount of FPs and possibilities to pause and break scripts. Codename Noreste  🤔  La Suma  03:40, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Not opposed to this, but both User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js or User:MPGuy2824/MoveToDraft.js just say something like this when a filter is tripped: Could not move page: API error: abusefilter-warning

Try again ? Also MPGuy's version already gives this warning: <div style="display: block; color: rgb(255, 0, 0); font-weight: bold; font-size: large;">Draftifying isn't appropriate per WP:DRAFTIFY, since this article is more than 90 days old. which is kind of hard to miss. Ideally, these script would be updated to show the parsed warning, though I'm not sure how much of an effect it will have. (Courtesy pings, .) Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:45, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * There are also, of course, manual draftifications not using the script, which currently get no warning. * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun... 21:17, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's probably a fair trade-off even the if the scripts don't display the warning properly. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:39, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this. I've manually analyzed the last 50 filter hits; and while 17 of those were true positives, there were 27 false positives (along with 6 cases in which it wasn't as clear to me). As far as I can see, the majority of the FPs came from round-robin page moves, draftification following WP:AFD/WP:REFUND, and situations in which the page itself had existed for more than 180 days, but had only recently been moved to mainspace (and were therefore within the time limit for draftification):

Although I think a warning for true positives would be beneficial (for the same reason as Pppery), I'm wondering if there are any ways that the rate of FPs can be decreased before this filter is set as such. As things currently stand, I'm leaning oppose, due to the large proportion of warnings that would be given to editors encountering false positives. (Also, as the filter's author.)

All the best. &zwj;—&zwj; a smart kitten <sub style="color:#595959">[  meow ] 16:39, 21 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Maybe we could reduce FPs from recently moved pages like this:
 * Note that I'm just using 1 week as a placeholder for when the article was last moved so it can be changed to whatever value is best. –  Pharyngeal Implosive7  (talk)  17:03, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * seems to be  if the target page doesn't exist; see testwiki:Special:AbuseLog/102036. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:31, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Maybe then it could be  but I'm not too sure about this. –  Pharyngeal Implosive7   (talk)  20:12, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Ugh, brain fart. Now I get it. You're saying that if the move was recent, the leftover redirect is probably still there in draft space, so we can use its age? Yes, that's a great idea! Though now I'm confused as to why there's a  variable at all. If the redirect-to-be-overwritten has only one revision, that's just the same as  . And if it has more than one revision, the move is just impossible. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 04:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * So then what variable would work better? I can't seem to find any suitable alternatives, but again you raise a point about the existence of the draft article preventing someone from moving back the page unless they are an admin or page mover (which isn't the majority of editors). So that wouldn't work because the move would be impossible. –  Pharyngeal Implosive7  (talk)  02:36, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * This is not convincing to me on principle. because the people doing false positives are experienced users that know what they're doing so will just click through the warning. * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun... 17:39, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all the digging! The first group of FPs all include a summary that contains either "robin", "swap", or "vacate". I don't know if that's a representative sample, but just excluding those summaries would produce few false negatives, unless someone deliberately uses them to avoid being logged by the filter, in which case they should at minimum receive a stern talking-to. The second group seems to come from one script (User:SD0001/RFUD-helper) which could be excluded. The others can, I suppose, just click past the warning. Compare, which warns every person leaving a CTOPS notice, appropriate or not. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:28, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Paranoia would suggest only excluding edits with the first FP summaries if the requester holds page mover rights, and also creating a separate filter to log any exclusions. * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun... 20:11, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * If they don't have pagemover rights, then they've left a redirect behind in mainspace. I don't know what fraction of admins at least do a spot check on R2 deletions, but if anyone frequently gets up to shenanigans like this, they'll be caught eventually. Filters (especially public filters) are never meant to stop every clever person from finding a workaround. With all that said, I still wouldn't object to a second, log-only, no-exceptions filter. The condition limit was doubled last year, and "move" filters are cheap. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Fair point regarding the others just being able to click past the warning - I suppose one of the things I'm concerned about is inadvertently building up banner blindness; though maybe the warning could be worded in such a way that it doesn't state that the editor is definitely trying to improperly draftify a page, just that the edit filter has detected that they might be. I'm in agreement with Pppery regarding only excluding the first set of edit summaries if the editor holds pagemover rights (in a similar way,  could be set to exclude only if the editor is an admin), and I don't have a strong opinion either way regarding creating a separate filter to log exclusions. Annoyingly, I'm not sure if there's a way to filter out 'page is old but was only recently moved to mainspace' hits.As a side-note, I'm wondering if it's worth notifying Wikipedia talk:Draft of this proposal - would anyone have any objections if I did? All the best, &zwj;—&zwj;  a smart kitten <sub style="color:#595959">[  meow ] 09:05, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm disinclined to set anything to warn an experienced editor. The only warnings from the edit filter I receive as an experienced editor are "you're about to place a CTOP" warnings, and those are a pain. They are jarring to my workflow, and they break user scripts. Also a 54% false positive rate is very high. – Novem Linguae (talk) 10:41, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * That's the point. Trying to draftily old articles should be jarring. * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun... 21:51, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 54% false positives, and the potential to break scripts such as WP:PAGESWAP, still leaves me with concerns. – Novem Linguae (talk) 00:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * To be fair, the round-robin moves I found in this filter's logs all appear to have been done manually (rather than using a script) - there appears to already be an exception in 1076 for moving to subpages of Draft:Move, which - as far as I'm aware - is what the scripts do. Personally speaking, I'd like to see if the false positive rate can be reduced before considering implementing a warning. All the best, &zwj;—&zwj; a smart kitten <sub style="color:#595959">[  meow ] 13:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Set filter 1283 to disallow

 * ("Rapid disruption IV", private)

Required notification; see filter notes. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 18:28, 27 April 2024 (UTC)


 * PLEASE DO NOT DISCUSS PUBLICLY. Codename Noreste  🤔  La Suma  18:35, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * This seems fine, the hits are going crazy lately with true positives. EggRoll97 (talk) 18:51, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Filter 1304
Untested and will probably need some tweaks. Please do not discuss details here, but set to disallow if needed without asking me. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 18:28, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * ("Rapid disruption V", private)


 * Another reminder to not discuss private filters like this one publicly. –  Pharyngeal Implosive7  (talk)  23:31, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's going to need major tweaks before anyone even considers setting that one to disallow. Might as well consider that one a sort of emergency filter at the current state until it's far more built. EggRoll97 (talk) 02:54, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Filter 139
Please do not discuss here (of course), but if anyone with access could pop an explanation in the filter notes or via email as to why this is hidden, I would appreciate it. I don't currently see any reason for it to be so, but I may be missing something right in front of my eyes. EggRoll97 (talk) 16:51, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * ("Fixed position vandalism", private)


 * It's because it's an LTA filter, pretty sure: Edit_filter_noticeboard/Archive_10. – 2804:F14:80C8:4701:20D2:F905:5323:F028 (talk) 21:26, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * This is from before my time, but I guess I'd call it slightly higher-effort vandalism than "skbidbdidi gyattt sigma". I think people doing that sort of thing, even if they aren't technically LTAs, are the sort who would find the filter and maybe even understand it. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:47, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Indeed. A little background, which I have a lot more of: The note added 28 June 2011 contains a distinct keyword, a (ns: 0|4) search of which can lead to some additional info. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:53, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Abuse filters for tagging speedy and PROD deletions
Right now it is a pain to filter deleted edits. I think the abuse filter should tag speedy deletions and PRODs to help find groups of pages that were deleted together.

For example, if one were to type in  in the "tags" field, then in the deletion log all the pages deleted under G6 should be visible. It would help with stuff like identifying the frequency of use of speedy criteria as well as allowing for searching of PRODs, etc. It possibly could also be done for XfDs. Awesome Aasim 17:48, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not impossible, but I question the necessity of tagging every speedy deletion. Are there specific CSD criterion you're looking for, and/or a reason you're specifically looking for them? EggRoll97 (talk) 21:24, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I was searching for G6 (I tagged a few pages for G6 yesterday and wanted to see if they were deleted, but I forgot the page title), but there is no way to search the deletion log by summary. The abuse filter tagging would really help. We would just need about as many filters as there are speedy criteria. Awesome Aasim 22:37, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a better job for a bot. I don't think this is worth using up 50 conditions, out of 2000. And a bot could apply tags retroactively. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 00:20, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Do you think that would be something good for a WP:BRFA? Tagging items and revisions in deletion logs and etc. to make searching easier, to avoid running up against condition limits? Awesome Aasim 16:23, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Off the top of my head, I don't see any major issues. My first concern was that the tagging would add clutter to people's watchlists, but based on a quick test, manually adding a tag does not show up there. There may be some other problems I haven't thought of yet. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 17:39, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I mean, you're talking about retroactively adding millions of tags (there exist ~15.5 million non-suppressed deletion logs on this project) with no clear rationale as to the usefulness of this. Identifying the frequency of use of speedy criteria can be done with trivial queries to the replica database. Finding pages you've nominated can be done with Twinkle's CSD log. Searching the deletion log by summary can be done on the replica database as well, and there's an argument to be made this would be better off as a suggested feature for MediaWiki rather than this mass-tagging exercise. Uhai (talk) 03:24, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree that we should be able to search the deletion log and past revisions easily. However, this tagging would be a good workaround. There should be some tag filters that work in the public logs, including deletion logs. Awesome Aasim 23:37, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree that we should be able to search the deletion log and past revisions easily. If anyone wants to open a Phab task, go right ahead. However, I think tagging should still be done, if not for past deletions, then for current ones as well. We can also tag revdels as well. That or the tags should be added by MediaWiki when choosing a prefilled summary automatically. Awesome Aasim 23:54, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Awesome Aasim Reach out at WP:RAQ or consider enabling Twinkle's CSD logging at Twinkle/Preferences to monitor pages you've nominated. Uhai (talk) 02:44, 9 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Don't think we should waste AF resources on this; it is a very niche user story. — xaosflux  Talk 00:26, 11 May 2024 (UTC)


 * ❌ Agreed - using a query is one option, asking for a bot is another (though obviously you would have to go through BRFA and I would expect there to be some questions of community support/consensus for such a wide-ranging bot). By my count I'm the fourth EFM to decline to add such a filter in this discussion, marking this as not done --DannyS712 (talk) 02:16, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Edit filter manager granted template
Just a standard notification, but feel free to make any additional changes if you want to this template. Codename Noreste 🤔  La Suma  02:34, 1 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Might be worth adding suggestions for user scripts, such as the ones I use including User:Ingenuity/AbuseFilterContribs, User:Suffusion of Yellow/FilterDebugger, User:Suffusion of Yellow/batchtest-plus, User:Suffusion of Yellow/effp-helper, and User:DannyS712/EFFPRH/sandbox.js. <span style="font-family:Iosevka,monospace">0x Deadbeef →∞ (talk to me) 10:59, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Filter 1285
Is the line  working as intended? ~10 days ago I did, and it didn't work initially: log. Was that line supposed to have covered this case? Perhaps it could check for the category instead. – 2804:F14:80B7:8201:F172:9A68:94A0:768 (talk) 21:18, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * ("Removal of short description", public)


 * @Suffusion of Yellow, since it's your filter and your line. – 2804:F14:80B7:8201:F172:9A68:94A0:768 (talk) 21:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Apparently not. I think this fix should do it. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:36, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Simpler than my idea, thank you. – 2804:F14:80B7:8201:F172:9A68:94A0:768 (talk) 21:42, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Set filter 1305 to disallow

 * ("LTA 1305", private)

Standard notification. Looks overly broad at first glance, but zero FPs so far. There are a few other checks that could be used to narrow it down, but I'll wait for FPs before doing so. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 17:51, 13 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Special note, I've assisted by creating changes for them to implement via email as this led to this filter's creation. Don't discuss details here. Codename Noreste  🤔  La Suma  18:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * And already added to DatBot. Definitly needed for now. Nobody  ( talk ) 05:07, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Expanding 614
In this thread, it was suggested to expand filter to include low-effort ways to bypass the blocking of the meme "skibidi". While I know we can't block every variation, we could try to block some of the more common variations. Specifically, we could change  part of 614 into   (change if there are any FPs, but I know that the string 'skbd' is used in some articles). Also pinging and  who participated in the previous discussion. –  Pharyngeal Implosive7  (talk)  22:19, 16 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I have another suggestion: replace both  and   with , as the very latter I made (and tested with regex101) catches both gyat and gyatt.  Codename Noreste  🤔  La Suma  17:36, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I think the issue with that is that right now, 'gyatt' is disallowed by the filter if it is present anywhere in the added text, while 'gyat' only is disallowed when alone and surrounded by spaces. We might have to test if that change leads to any FNs first. –  Pharyngeal Implosive7  (talk)  16:52, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Correct. If the absence of a word boundary isn't causing FPs, best to just leave it. Some people just see a text entry box, stab their finger somewhere in the middle, and start typing. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:13, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This was already almost covered by, but they actually used "cskbidi". I removed the beginning word boundary, which is probably safe. Removing the ending boundary would match "skidding" and "skittish". Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:05, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

"Nuh uh"
I recently encountered this vandalism adding "Nuh uh" to the end of the artice. Anyone else encountered something like this as well? Feels like it's a possible candidate for mix-used words, noting how a known meme exists for the phrase as well. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 01:48, 23 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I'm not 100% confident, but I'm pretty sure the mixed-use words and other related filters started based on data collated at User:Suffusion of Yellow/Commonly reverted words and phrases (EFN post: #New report to check before going to EFR).
 * @Suffusion of Yellow, would it have shown in your reports if it was significant? – 2804:F14:80E4:8401:DCFE:5436:C21:470C (talk) 02:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * "Nuh" is already a part of ; they just ignored the warning. It seems to fluctuate in and out of the report, probably because I'm including all namespaces, and it's not revert-on-sight when posted on a talk page. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 05:11, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Reminder
From WP:EF (emphasis added): Except in urgent situations, new edit filters must not be set to disallow without thorough testing and a notice at the noticeboard to give other edit filter managers and the community time to review the filter for technical accuracy and necessity. In urgent situations, the notice may be made after-the-fact. I think this is still important, even if most people have gotten out of this habit. Except in the most extreme cases, a day or two in log-only isn't going to hurt, and there may be subtleties you haven't considered. And more eyes are always better. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 18:39, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * There's also User:MusikBot/FilterMonitor/Recent changes to keep track of filter changes. Nobody  ( talk ) 05:23, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Tag-only can't hurt as well, right? Codename Noreste  🤔  La Suma  05:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Log only is best, because if a filter goes awry and starts firing constantly it would leave lots of changetags that could confuse other editors. — xaosflux  Talk 17:31, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Skibidi uwu gyatt 42069
I just got done with the bot-reported part of AIV: thank you, thank you to all of you building these filters that keep SO MUCH SHIT out of our articles. I appreciate it. Drmies (talk) 14:20, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I had a look because I was curious, and I can absolutely say I have had enough of "gyatt" and related terminology for at least a few years. EggRoll97 (talk) 00:50, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Kudos to for keeping all of this brainrot nonsense out from articles, ¿eh?  Codename Noreste  🤔  La Suma  01:35, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yep. Whenever a newly coined word becomes popular enough to enter the mainstream, some immediately think "Can I vandalize Wikipedia with it?" Thanks to our filter managers for preventing that. Justarandomamerican (talk) Have a good day! 21:38, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Filter 1310

 * (Trump "felon" meme, public)

Shortly after Trump was impeached, the was a flood of people trying to add "and the only X to be impeached by the house" every place his name was mentioned. See. Now, of course, it's "convicted felon". We already have this at a page about a number, and this at a page about his son's school. Obviously, keeping this log-only; in some contexts it's going to be appropriate. But please keep an eye out. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 00:28, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Should the templating instructions be collapsed by default on the EFFPR page?
So I tried a bit of tinkering, and it's fully possible of course to collapse the instructions from the editnotice at Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Edit filter/False positives/Reports so that the page isn't half taken up by the templates when editing the page (removing duplicates, anything that has to be done manually instead of script-assisted). It's a useful guide when one is first starting out on the false positives page, but for those who already have experience dealing with them (I would characterize a majority of the editors on the page), a guide to the EFFP template is helpful to have there, but not always necessary. So I would therefore propose that the editnotice be changed from:

to the following:

EggRoll97 (talk) 20:08, 31 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I second this as well. Codename Noreste  🤔  La Suma  02:00, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm opposed to this change. Since I don't use a script to answer the requests and instead use the 1-click Short Codes this creates more work for me. Nobody  ( talk ) 06:47, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Prevent users from adding middle fingers in user space
Per subject, personally I feel that middle finger emoji is inappropriate Wikipedia itself, noting how it is often used for talk page vandalism, I suggest here after a talk that filter 680 (or any other appropriate filter) should block middle finger emojis (and potentially other emojis being added by non-autoconfirmed/IP) from userspace, not just mainspace. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 01:24, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I recommend adding it to and have a possible filter change, if any EFM wants to take a look mail me.  Nobody  ( talk ) 06:53, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Is this what you had in mind? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:52, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Suffusion of Yellow Not exactly, sent you a mail. Nobody  ( talk ) 05:14, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I've added this condition to filter 53; it'll flag edits that add this emoji to any namespace.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   01:59, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Set filter 1311 to disallow?
Should be self explanatory. Private really means private here. Please do not even allude to what it's doing. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:14, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * ("LTA 1311", private)
 * Looks fine, but needs very close monitoring (trying to be highly vague here, but I agree it's best to have this on disallow). EggRoll97 (talk) 21:54, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support disallow, was going to be a neutral but then I read up on who LTA 1311 is --DannyS712 (talk) 02:19, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure disallow is the best option. I would like to maximize the chances that it will continue to work for a long while. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 00:17, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Edited my previous comment for clarity. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 20:04, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Do you think this warrants a filter?
A new account suspiciously added 10 thousand bytes (my removal) of an invisible character to one of the templates at ANI when they made a reply. They also added them to their userpage just before that. I know this is probably crafty vandalism that only happens once in a while, if at all, but I don't think there's any legitimate reason that anyone would want to add more than a handful of invisible characters (if any invisible characters at all). – 2804:F14:80BE:B501:C033:1C2F:5D84:A79C (talk) 07:52, 6 June 2024 (UTC)


 * This looks like it could also benefit from a software fix. I've filed private ticket T366777. – Novem Linguae (talk) 08:59, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That user was blocked indefinitely by as a sockpuppet.  Codename Noreste  🤔  Talk  03:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Clarification: by that user, Codename Noreste meant the vandalizing user, not the IP posting the request. –  Pharyngeal Implosive7  (talk)  06:28, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Requesting Edit filter helper rights
Hi, I am requesting Edit Filter Helper rights to aid in expanding and enhancing the quality and experience of AbuseFilter on the CKB Wikipedia. I aim to learn from the English Wikipedia's approach to improve ckbwiki's filters and its effectiveness. also i have a good understanding of account security. and as an extended confirmed editor and reviewer on the English Wikipedia, I believe that i have sufficient English understanding and proficiency. Additionally, I am an interface-admin and sysop on ckbwiki and hold various rights across multiple WMF projects, demonstrating my trustworthiness and capability. Thanks<span id="Sakura_emad:1717220841604:WikipediaFTTCLNEdit_filter_noticeboard" class="FTTCmt"> —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 05:47, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Question Neutral You've satisfied the bar (probably?) for trust. I'm more interested on if you'd be able to elaborate on your working with filters on your homewiki. I've tried to check for your contributions to filters over there, but everything about the AbuseFilter is locked down on CKB, and so it's pretty hard to examine any work you've done with filters without being in the GAFH usergroup. Your rights on CKBwiki are currently sysop and interface admin, the latter of which doesn't relate to the AbuseFilter extension on CKBwiki (Another group, "Interface editors", appears to be the local equivalent of non-admin edit filter manager on CKB?), and the former of which doesn't necessarily indicate work with the edit filter by default. EggRoll97 (talk) 07:25, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Correction, only admins on ckbwiki can modify filters, based on looking at the ListGroupRights special page over there. Codename Noreste  🤔  La Suma  20:44, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, the  right is available to interface editors (not interface administrators, despite the commonality of naming) as well as admins. EggRoll97 (talk) 18:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * To provide some input and context: I was approached by Sakura about some of our edit filters on the Wikipedia Community Discord (which is off-wiki). Her original request to me was for the regex code for the private edit filters that I created and manage (51, 53). Obviously, that didn't and really can't happen. The conditions and methods I use in those filters to efficiently identify and tag abuse would be significantly compromised if any of the regex code were to fall into the wrong hands. I do trust Sakura emad and I do believe that she is doing this to try and improve the chb-wiki's filter rules. But, as you all know, if a mistake or mishandling of the code were to occur (such as accidentally being made public in a change, etc), you can't "get the cat back into the bag once set loose". Hence, I suggested she gather demonstrable experience from her contributions and create a request for edit filter helper instead. When I asked Sakura on the wiki discord about her level of experience with regex and with modifying filter rules, she responded, "i [sic] send most of them to https://ckb.wikipedia.org/wiki/user:aram [sic]" and that "he is ckb technican". I was able to review the edit filters on the ckb-wiki as well as her level of involvement with them, and her contributions don't show much in that manner. Since I was approached by her off-wiki (Wikipedia Community Discord), I'm just going to add the information and facts about this request. I hope the information I provided is useful either way.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   02:23, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Have you tried asking for the contents of individual private filters? Are there any specific filters in your mind? I also note that I can't view the logs for abuse filters on ckbwiki without being confirmed. <span style="font-family:Iosevka,monospace">0x Deadbeef →∞ (talk to me) 10:44, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 0xDeadbeef- EggRoll97, I've learned quite a few things from my experiences on the English and Simple Wikipedia. My adminship, particularly on Simple Wikipedia, has been crucial in shaping the admin I am today. Most of my experiences i've got came from these wikis, and the admins that helped me. even my global rollback right came from the experience of fighting and preventing vandalism on simplewiki. Given this background, it's clear that much of what I've learned did not come from ckbwiki alone. I believe that learning from the English Wikipedia’s approach to edit filters will greatly enhance my ability to improve and work on the current abusefilter on ckbwiki. I am committed to respect and responsibly use the rights I am granted.<br style="margin-bottom:0.5em"/>I have reviewed WP:EFH, especially the WP:EFHCRITERIA and the "Common use cases" on that page. I meet the requirements and specifically fit the second case under common use cases, as someone working with edit filters on another WMF wiki who wants to learn from the English Wikipedia's experience and approach. Thanks<span id="Sakura_emad:1717259524912:WikipediaFTTCLNEdit_filter_noticeboard" class="FTTCmt"> —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 16:32, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You don't have adminship on Simple, as far as I can tell...you have rollback, but that is far from any work with the AbuseFilter outside of CKBwiki, which you still have yet to elaborate on your work regarding. EggRoll97 (talk) 20:22, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * EggRoll97, let me clarify-; What I meant is that if it were not for my experiences on simplewiki in dealing with vandalism, deletion requests, etc. i wouldn't be the admin i am today on ckbwiki. Of course, it is obvious that I am not an admin on simplewiki my global status is already in public knowledge.<span id="Sakura_emad:1717308486925:WikipediaFTTCLNEdit_filter_noticeboard" class="FTTCmt"> —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 06:08, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think EggRol97 is asking you to talk about what you have used the abuse filter for in CKBwiki itself, so could you elaborate on that? –  Pharyngeal Implosive7  (talk)  21:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * , do you also intend to help with filters on enwiki, now that you work with filters on ckbwiki as an administrator over there? I'm also curious about your regex knowledge in relation to edit filters here and there. Codename Noreste  🤔  La Suma  17:11, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Codename Noreste, Yes i would love to, actually. But i believe that i have to gain more experience first. Then I'd be happy to contribute on both WMF projects. Thanks<span id="Sakura_emad:1717309488445:WikipediaFTTCLNEdit_filter_noticeboard" class="FTTCmt"> —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 06:24, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * However, based on what Oshwah said in this context, it's pretty clear that you should gain much more experience with edit filters here, as well as your edit count. There are the public filters in which you can help here, and I'm not sure if your need requires access to private filters, in which most of those filters are private because of specific LTAs on this project, and some are hidden as well because the logs can contain personal information and/or other stuff that should not be made public. So because of ER97 and Ingenuity, I'm gonna have to oppose your EFH request at this time. Sorry. Codename Noreste  🤔  La Suma  18:59, 2 June 2024 (UTC)


 * What kinds of private filters are you looking to access? Most relevant filters (614, 384, etc.) are already public. —Ingenuity (t • c) 22:41, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Ingenuity - I just added some information and context in this discussion that will answer your question.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   02:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

<div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Oppose Based on the information given by Oshwah through off-wiki contact, I don't have much confidence that the requestor is actively involved with edit filter work on their homewiki. EggRoll97 (talk) 03:10, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * EggRoll97, I understand the concern about my activity level with edit filters. I am working on them actually, but my limited experience and knowledge mean my contributions might not be as visible as expected of me yet. as you know Abusefilters are highly sensitive matter, and i just can't make changes for learning or experimentation. That's why my activity might not appear as high, but i do work on them on ckbwiki to the best of my current abilities.<span id="Sakura_emad:1717310744771:WikipediaFTTCLNEdit_filter_noticeboard" class="FTTCmt"> —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 06:45, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Much of the problem is that we can't see your contributions to CKBwiki's edit filters, and even if you were to post the logs publicly, it wouldn't be verifiable since it's not the actual logs themselves. A lot of it as well is that you still haven't elaborated either here or to the mailing list (which only contains EFH/EFM/sysops and where you could easily disclose any private filter contributions on CKBwiki that might not be best to post publicly) about your work on edit filters. Further, having seen the edit filters you requested from Oshwah, the contents of those filters are extremely sensitive to any type of outside access, and so are a lot of the other private filters, with one of them being traditionally information that would be oversighted if it wasn't a private filter. EggRoll97 (talk) 18:55, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * EggRoll97, are you suggesting that my request for 'extremely sensitive' filters implies an intention to harm the community? Out of the 54 abuse filters on ckbwiki, 10 are under my name. I need this right specifically to improve the quality of abuse filters on ckbwiki and contribute to them effectively. My account age is almost 4 years. Also regardless of contributions and Group-rights promotions i've received on ckb, please check CentralAuth—my home wiki is not ckbwiki, it is Enwiki. <br style="margin-bottom:0.5em"/>Oshwah failed to mention that I asked for 3 filters back then; I didn't specifically ask for his filters, but because he was the only admin I reached out to, 2 of the 3 filters were his. The reason I asked for the filters that Oshwah made was purely for improvement and gaining experience, since they were the only private filters at the time that I thought ckbwiki didn't have and that I needed to learn from, for the benefit of both projects in the future. Do you think Oshwah would have assisted me with the requesting procedure if he didn't trust me with abuse filters?<span id="Sakura_emad:1717360216980:WikipediaFTTCLNEdit_filter_noticeboard" class="FTTCmt"> —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 20:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC) <br style="margin-bottom:0.5em"/>Before requesting anything, I carefully examined the vital details of Edit filter helper and only requested this right after I fully understood that I meet the requirements mentioned and that I'm fit for the position. Reading "Those working with edit filters on another WMF wiki who want to learn from the English Wikipedia's experience," I believe I did what I was guided to do. These opposes are unexpected for me since I don't know what regulations or rules I broke.<span id="Sakura_emad:1717360216980:WikipediaFTTCLNEdit_filter_noticeboard" class="FTTCmt"> —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 20:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I suggested nothing of the sort. See WP:EFHCRITERIA,, and I don't believe you have a demonstrated need currently to see private filters. EggRoll97 (talk) 22:05, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * EggRoll97, I believe I have repeatedly stated that I am working on improving the quality of ckbwiki abusefilters. If this doesn't demonstrate my commitment, then what else does?, however, it seems, Showing demonstration does not necessarily equate to being seen as one.<span id="Sakura_emad:1717390484855:WikipediaFTTCLNEdit_filter_noticeboard" class="FTTCmt"> —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 04:54, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You have stated that, yes, but the modification log for CKBwiki's filters is hidden to almost everyone here, and your only specific comment about your work on them is what you said to Oshwah, which is that you send fixes to someone else. So all we really have to go on here is your own word. EggRoll97 (talk) 18:46, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose per EggRoll. I also don't really see why access to private filters is needed. —Ingenuity (t • c) 14:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Request to remove a user from filter 856's line 8
Please remove from filter 856's line 8 (copyvio clerks) because that user has passed away. Thank you. Codename Noreste 🤔  Talk  19:06, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:58, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Did other cleanup there, the current list of names is useless, and the group is really the right way to handle that anyway. — xaosflux  Talk 12:20, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Request to change line 4 of filter 98
(Creating very short new article, public)

Per Edit filter/Traps and pitfalls, I would suggest changing  on line 4 with   because of this: but this will not work as expected if the user did not grant editprotected when setting up a bot password.. may be limited if the user has logged in using a bot password, or is editing with an OAuth application. Thank you. Codename Noreste 🤔  Talk  00:41, 21 June 2024 (UTC)


 * @Codename Noreste ✅, nice catch: Special:AbuseFilter/history/98/diff/prev/32847 --DannyS712 (talk) 00:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Error when saving filters
Heads up: as of last WP:THURSDAY attempting to save certain filters will give you a Fatal exception of type "MediaWiki\Extension\AbuseFilter\Parser\Exception\UserVisibleException". See the task for details. If you need to disable a filter and can't wait for the problem to be fixed, just blank and disable it, but remember you won't be able to restore the old version until the bug is fixed. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 01:36, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

A quick thought: Should WP:EFM be a page instead of a section?
I've wondered for a while whether WP:EFM should be an actual page (similar to WP:EFH), rather than just a section on the edit filter page. Does anyone have any thoughts about whether this might break WP:CREEP, or whether this might be beneficial? EggRoll97 (talk) 01:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC)


 * At this point, yea - I've been meaning to do it forever and just kept putting it off. Feel free to draft something modeled on Edit filter helper. — xaosflux  Talk 02:06, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't object to this thought at all, but it's also worth noting that administrators can only modify edit filters that use restricted actions, as well as being able to enable such actions on filters. Codename Noreste  🤔  Talk  03:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Will do, though functionally the only restricted action is, which hasn't been used in over a decade, and would likely need multiple discussions to just have a single filter with it enabled anyways. EggRoll97 (talk) 21:31, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thoughts on what I've whipped up currently at Edit filter manager? EggRoll97 (talk) 23:50, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @EggRoll97 the revocation criteria prob need work, as it is generally not appropriate for admins to just remove this from other admins, as opposed to the non-admin EFMs. — xaosflux  Talk 23:59, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If this is going to contain any changes from the current content that are meaningful, like criteria for revocation, we should have a slightly more formal discussion/approval of the changes. E.g. "The editor has failed to report to an administrator after noticing unauthorized use of their account..." - if I were ever to notice unauthorized use of my account, I don't think I would be reporting it to admins on each wiki I have advanced rights. I would change my passwords and probably mention it to stewards, perform a crosswiki audit of every action performed recently, and likely reach out to the WMF security team since I have 2FA and would be curious how someone had bypassed it, but why do I need to tell an enwiki admin if when compromised the account didn't make any changes on enwiki? --DannyS712 (talk) 01:00, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Also "If a previous application for edit filter manager or edit filter helper was unsuccessful" - I think I had an unsuccessful EFH request before I was granted it, but when I applied for EFM this currently suggests that I should have pinged the participants of the successful EFH discussion. I.e. I should have told the people at Special:Permalink/909783210 about my EFM request, which would feel like canvassing to me. --DannyS712 (talk) 01:03, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I've removed the "edit filter helper" bit currently, that was just a copy direct from WP:EFH, I thought I took out the helper one. The intention was only to require notification about prior EFM requests. As for the account security language, I'm pretty sure that's just the standard language, but I don't see much reason for it to be in there honestly. It was just part of EFH and so got copied over. EggRoll97 (talk) 01:55, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I should ask, why would removal of this right from an admin not be considered appropriate? Admins are able to self-grant, so their granting of edit filter manager rights isn't subject to a community process in the same manner as non-admin EFMs (they are given adminship at RfA, though that doesn't necessarily assess technical ability unless the admin is running on being a tech-admin). I'd actually think it should be easier to remove from an admin, considering it would be trivially easy to regrant (just a talk page discussion between the revoking admin and the revokee), compared to the process to re-grant to a non-admin (a formal request to WP:EFN, requiring the action of an admin to re-grant). EggRoll97 (talk) 01:55, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Short answer, sanctioning admins is always a "big deal". — xaosflux  Talk 09:35, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm seeing a lot of WP:CREEP in there. For example, it's never been a convention that disabling a filter, or changing it from disallow to log-only requires discussion. Sometimes, the meme dies a natural death, or the LTA gets bored, and a discussion will be the very thing that brings them back. I think any new rules for EFMs should be in response to some problem that's actually happened, not a problem that might happen. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:42, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah...I may have just gone on a bit when trying to start as detailed as possible. Removed, it doesn't make much sense in hindsight. EggRoll97 (talk) 00:42, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 01:07, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Tonight I made a couple edits to WP:EFH and WP:EFM that reduce WP:CREEP. We had a couple very detailed procedures for things that almost never happen, so I deleted those sections or changed them to a couple sentences. Hope it helps. – Novem Linguae (talk) 04:12, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Novem Linguae: In Special:Diff/1230686585, should say edit filter helper, right? – 2804:F14:80BA:C801:4029:C761:8E13:F724 (talk) 22:17, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes. Fixed now. Thanks for alerting me. – Novem Linguae (talk) 23:21, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Set 365 To Warn?
365 unusual changes to featured or good content i think to warn 51.235.113.220 (talk) 07:09, 8 July 2024 (UTC)


 * What's the point of requesting changes to random filters and at the same time being disruptive elsewhere (in filter logs and edits)? This is the third time I've seen you do this (1st, 2nd), and while the second one resulted in a filter being set to disallow, your disruption does not seem worth it. – 2804:F1...13:E752 (talk) 08:23, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose I see no good reason for this change. Nobody  ( talk ) 08:58, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose: no good reason provided. –  Pharyngeal Implosive7  (talk)  14:18, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose per everyone, no reason was provided. Codename Noreste  🤔  Talk  13:28, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Marking 491 Private
Why 491 as public i think 491 private 128.234.122.41 (talk) 10:51, 15 July 2024 (UTC)


 * This post seems a bit low effort. Care to elaborate on why you'd like this changed? – Novem Linguae (talk) 11:10, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose The filters name already says why the edits are disallowed so hiding how the filter works isn't helpful nor is there any private information in the filter that makes it required. Nobody  ( talk ) 11:12, 15 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose: same user randomly as before who asks to change filters while being disruptive elsewhere. –  Pharyngeal Implosive7  (talk)  13:03, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Edit filter manager has an RfC
Wikipedia:Edit filter manager has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. EggRoll97 (talk) 19:03, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Should global abuse filter helpers have access to the private filter mailing list?
Just another thought today, but because global abuse filter helpers can view every single filter on every project (whether public or private) including the English Wikipedia, I was wondering if we could at least give them access to the edit filter mailing list on lists.wikimedia.org. They might share some other private (including LTA) filters from other wikis, including non-content projects such as Meta. Codename Noreste 🤔  Talk  17:58, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * If they request it, I see no problems, but as far as I know they usually don't. EggRoll97 (talk) 20:07, 6 July 2024 (UTC)