Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12

Permissions archives

Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Hey all, I’ve seen some vandalism with “pp”, usually proceeded by “suck my”. Can an EFM add this term to filter #614? - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 16:23, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The regex of 'suck my (dick|pp|penis)*' should cover all that I believe. Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (he|she|they) 20:28, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hmm. I do see that now. I guess I need to stop editing when sleep deprived - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 20:34, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I never said it was in the filter, it possibly is but I can't bother to look, but it could be added to solve it. Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (he|she|they) 07:18, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think this is already part of filter 260. Nobody (talk) 07:30, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nope it's not as far as I believe, suck my (dick/penis/cock (take your pick)) is included but not suck my pp. Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (he|she|they) 09:47, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Probably could be added right after the entry for "PRICK" (I'm sure it's just nice fellows adding that to articles, right?), so it would read as follows (had to sub out | for - so the template works, but I think the point is made)? EggRoll97 ^(talk) 00:20, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

−

-DICK?-PRICK-BALL*S-

+

-DICK?-PRICK-PP-BALL*S-

Not everyone who is an EFH/EFM/admin is subscribed to the mailing list, and not everyone is on IRC. It might be nice to have a private wiki for coordinating changes to/discussing contents of private filters, which can also have better documentation as compared to what we have at Special:AbuseFilter/1231. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 10:08, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seems like overkill to start an entire new project for that, just subscribe to the mailing list. — xaosflux ^Talk 10:26, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The mailing list is quite low activity and scales poorly when new requests for LTA edit filters can go unanswered for weeks and months. Composing a reply in one of those threads is quite different from leaving comments/messages on a private wiki. And when threads go unanswered, how might one know if action was needed but no one got to it or rather action wasn't needed at all? To my knowledge, there's little communication about private filters in semi-public or private places about private edit filters and LTAs. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 10:46, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Xaosflux couldn't put it better, seems overkill to go to the effort of making an entire wiki because people don't subscribe to a mailing list. Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (he|she|they) 07:14, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with @0xDeadbeef that a private wiki would be extremely helpful in coordinating edit filter changes, compared to an email thread. As someone who isn’t on IRC, this is very good idea in my opinion. I’m not sure how to go about requesting one though. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 12:22, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Being an edit filter helper for a day now shows me how helpful this could be. For example, I’m still learning the ropes and want to ask questions about a few private filters. Rather than notify a whole mailing list who probably doesn’t care, I think a wiki type discussion format would be quite useful. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 11:45, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requests go through phabricator, but they will want to see more consensus that this is needed before creating it - I'm happy to help with the process but it would be premature to file a request now DannyS712 (talk) 13:01, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree that it would be premature now, just curious what the process was. Thanks! - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 21:48, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd prefer a slightly larger scope: edit filters and general discussion of LTAs that violates BEANS or DENY. Not every "tell" can be matched by a filter. Also, possibly, make it a global project, open to admins/EFMs from other wikis. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:25, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Excellent idea, I agree. It also kind of addresses the point made by User:Red-tailed hawk below. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 22:28, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd be a bit hesitant about allowing access from admins on all wikis. wikt:User:Wonderfool/alternative accounts - LTA became an admin four times after being blocked the first time (first account was also the original admin). We also saw with Special:Diff/1183105704 that even our (enwiki's) screening of admins isn't perfect, and we probably have a lot more scrutiny than most wikis - a truly motivated LTA could probably become a sysop on another wiki given enough time. DannyS712 (talk) 23:24, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If we plan to make a private wiki that allows discussion of hidden filters, we should probably keep it to the English Wikipedia only; should admins, EFMs and EFHs automatically get access, or is a subscription required? — 64andtim (chat • see here) 00:22, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Something to consider is that not every sysop is interested in, or actively involved with the edit filter. At the time of writing, there are 137 edit filter managers, because admins don't automatically have access. There are a further 21 edit filter helpers. I would presume there are a few admins who use the private filter viewing right bundled with sysop, but likely not a lot, so I'd add another 20 or so to the total. In total, that means there's probably around 200 people on the wiki who actively engage with private filters, and not all the administrators with EFM are actively editing filters. Realistically, it's a fairly small group of people, so it probably should be a subscription type of thing, where not everyone is automatically given access. EFHs and EFMs should probably be given access automatically, with admins able to gain access on request or by adding themselves to the EFM group, depending on their confidence in filter editing. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 01:11, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good points if the venue is only used for edit filter discussions. I do agree with Suffusion of Yellow that the scope could be larger, where the wiki could facilitate general discussion about LTAs, which means we could document the behavior patterns of LTA's while still in accordance with WP:DENY. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 04:34, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

IANAEFH let alone an admin, but to my knowledge most LTAs are either petty vandals or subtle abusers. The former wouldn't merit a private wiki (even having pages to document them is contentious), and the latter are monitored closely by admins and functionaries -- many of them will have much more useful documentation on the private checkuser wiki. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 14:06, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I believe the idea is that this wiki would allow enwiki EFHs, EFMs, and Admins (if they wish) to discuss improvements to private filters that cannot be disclosed in public. It also would help us coordinate our filters about LTAs and have some documentation about them for future filter edits. And while I’m sure the CheckUser wiki does have more detailed info, most of the edit filter community cannot access it. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 14:26, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was responding to SoY's comment explicitly suggesting that the wiki's remit include LTA discussion, but regardless of whether it's included or not, one set of permission holders (EFH/EFM) on one wiki is an extremely small userbase to create a new wiki around. There are maybe 40 users actively involved with private filters across enwiki, and only 83 filters that have been modified this year. Absent a strong reason, I'm wary of reducing the transparency of a group already with little oversight. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 17:18, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If we give access to admins (or like SoY's suggestion above, also to EFMs and sysops from other sites), I don't think this would be reducing the transparency of people working on private edit filters. The wikipedia-en-editfilters mailing list can be subscribed to by administrators, but it should be pretty obvious that not a lot of administrators are subscribed. (Not sure about the numbers, but it is possible that it has no non-EFM admins) Moving those mostly-dead discussions to a private wiki, though not sure whether it could revive some activity by being more accessible, should increase the transparency and not the other way around. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 17:33, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maybe I have an idea: for the English Wikipedia, EFHs and EFMs automatically get access, and administrators have the option to subscribe if they want to be interested about the edit filter discussion mailing list (not all admins get automatic access, but they have the option to subscribe without review). Although for the private wiki where we should keep the hidden filter discussions there and not on enwiki, we're gonna need much clearer consensus before we get started on developing that private wiki. — 64andtim (chat • see here) 18:10, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The mailing list infrastructure doesn't support doing this and we'd need a tool to automate that. You have to put an email address which gives mailing list owners a hard time verifying when you are not subscribed to any other mailing lists. (anecdote: I had to be contacted privately through discord verifying that the email was really me for getting access) 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 18:15, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh, so for now everytime an EFH/EFM/admin subscribes to the current mailing list, it requires manual review; however, if we're not doing an automatic tool to automatically subscribe to the topic, how about that EFMs and admins can manually review and accept or decline so that this would mean a much faster response (they may have to sign the NDA first)? The mailing list only has two admins – this would mean a significantly slower response.— 64andtim (chat • see here) 18:20, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It wouldn't just be EFHs and EFMs who would be encouraged to join the private wiki; it would also be any admin who deals with LTAs. Which probably includes all the AIV and ANI "regulars". I think that's enough scrutiny. And the main advantage I see over a mailing list is organization. In a mailing list archive, information about LTA XYZ might be scattered across various (uneditable) threads named "Filter request", "Harassment" etc., but on a wiki, we can create something like WP:LTA but without worrying about the BEANS. Also some users might not like sharing their email addresses (and possibly IP addresses, depending on mail provider and client) with everyone else on the list, but on a wiki, it's only the person creating your account who can see your email address. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 02:45, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That would be nice, if there was a wiki in which we could properly write about WP:LTAs. Galobtter (talk) 03:55, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But how would we restrict that discussion wiki to trusted users? I mean, sometimes I deal with those bad users and it would be nice if I came in to help. — 64andtim (chat • see here) 04:25, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I’m afraid that we’d probably have to restrict it to edit filter helpers/managers and admins, for security. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 11:17, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good idea, I concur with your statement. — 64andtim (chat • see here) 16:13, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See the recent history of Stan Mataele and Dan Blumenthal. This is the same crap that was being posted to AN/ANI the other night. Looks like it's already being tracked but we really need to start disallowing this nonsense. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 00:14, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think there's a couple filters that tag, and if I recall there's a disallow filter somewhere. I'm not able to see the contents of the edits in the history, though, since they appear to have been revdel'ed already. From the history though, it doesn't seem like a severe problem, and seems to have been caught quickly by RC patrollers. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 02:06, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It looks like because of the severity, I have made a case about them. Apparently, for both biographies, we can't see the public or private filter hits for those pages in question.

And as Suffusion of Yellow told me, "LTAs read this page too". – 64andtim ^{(talk to me!)} 03:52, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Would it be possible to check and disallow links added to disambiguation pages? I'm requesting this after seeing this edit go through. Nobody (talk) 08:33, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good idea, we should allow articles of people who have said articles about them on notable people lists while simultaneously disallowing disambiguation pages whose titles have peoples' names too. – 64andtim ^(talk) 18:38, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Despite Filter 1159 aiming to prevent mentions of Christine W. Chandler from being added to Wikipedia, a mention was present on the "List of outsider artists" until I removed it: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_outsider_artists&diff=prev&oldid=1187547794 Given that there will inevitably be people with one of the names Chandler has had throughout her life mentioned on Wikipedia (including the New Mexico politician linked) the filter can't block all of them, but this does show that it's not perfect. Alexschmidt711 (talk) 23:21, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I believe we may need to change 1159 on the first line so that it will also apply to all namespaces except templates, the Wikipedia and MediaWiki namespaces, user (and user talk) pages, and pages in userspace (except the sandbox in said userspace).

And by the way, filter 1159 does not disallow such mentions, and instead it tags edits; a private filter probably does the job at disallowing mentions. – 64andtim ^(talk) 01:19, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]