Cannabis Ruderalis

    Welcome to the edit filter noticeboard
    Recent filter changes (purge):
    Filter 1307 (new) — Actions: disallow; Flags: enabled,private; Pattern modified
    Last changed at 00:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

    Filter 614 — Pattern modified

    Last changed at 20:01, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

    Filter 1306 (new) — Actions: none; Flags: enabled,private; Pattern modified

    Last changed at 21:47, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

    This is the edit filter noticeboard, for coordination and discussion of edit filter use and management.

    If you wish to request an edit filter, please post at Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested. If you would like to report a false positive, please post at Wikipedia:Edit filter/False positives.

    Private filters should not be discussed in detail here; please email an edit filter manager if you have specific concerns or questions about the content of hidden filters.



    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)[reply]

    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. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 10:59, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Prevent users from adding middle fingers in user space[edit]

    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)[reply]

    I recommend adding it to 1053 (hist · log) and have a possible filter change, if any EFM wants to take a look mail me. Nobody (talk) 06:53, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @1AmNobody24: Is this what you had in mind? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:52, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Suffusion of Yellow Not exactly, sent you a mail. Nobody (talk) 05:14, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Abuse filters for tagging speedy and PROD deletions[edit]

    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 speedy-g6 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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @Awesome Aasim Reach out at WP:RAQ or consider enabling Twinkle's CSD logging at Wikipedia:Twinkle/Preferences#speedy to monitor pages you've nominated. Uhai (talk) 02:44, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
     Not done 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)[reply]

    Filter 1285[edit]

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

    Is the line !(new_html contains "shortdescription") & /* Catch-all for weird edge cases */ working as intended? ~10 days ago I did <this edit>, 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)[reply]

    @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)[reply]
    Apparently not. I think this fix should do it. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:36, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Simpler than my idea, thank you. – 2804:F14:80B7:8201:F172:9A68:94A0:768 (talk) 21:42, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Set filter 1305 to disallow[edit]

    • 1305 (hist · log) ("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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    And already added to DatBot. Definitly needed for now. Nobody (talk) 05:07, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Expanding 614[edit]

    In this thread, it was suggested to expand filter 614 (hist · log) 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 \s*bozo|skibidi|gyatt part of 614 into \s*bozo|sk[i1]?b[i1]?d[i1]?(?<!skbd)|gyatt (change if there are any FPs, but I know that the string 'skbd' is used in some articles). Also pinging @Myrealnamm: and @Suffusion of Yellow: who participated in the previous discussion. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 22:19, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I have another suggestion: replace both gyatt and \bgyat\b with \bgyat{1,}\b, 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)[reply]
    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. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 16:52, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    This was already almost covered by \bs+k+[i1bdt]{4,}y*\b, 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)[reply]

    "Nuh uh"[edit]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    "Nuh" is already a part of 1297 (hist · log); 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)[reply]

    Skibidi uwu gyatt 42069[edit]

    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)[reply]

    Leave a Reply