Edit filter log

'{{shortcut|WT:AF|WT:FILTER}}{{Filternav}}{{User:MiszaBot/config |maxarchivesize = 300K |counter = 4 |algo = old(20d) |archive = Wikipedia talk:Edit filter/Archive %(counter)d }}{{archives|auto=long|index=/Archive index|search=yes}} == Filter 200, or should the EF be engaged to track non-abusive, non-"wrong" edits? == :''[[Special:AbuseFilter/200]]'' Why on earth is there a filter looking for removed prods that is tagging edits with ''"tag: prod removed"''? I've triggered this thing a number of times now and to be perfectly honest I can't see that it has any purpose whatsoever. This filter makes it seem as though you are doing something wrong when you remove a prod; both the tag ''and'' the filter log. If an editor wants to know if a prod they placed on a particular article has been removed then they need to watchlist said article. --[[User:Tothwolf|Tothwolf]] ([[User talk:Tothwolf|talk]]) 16:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC) *I agree, this filter is a bad idea and is just going to cause more negative feelings about the edit filter. I've disabled it. I'm sure a bot can be written to monitor the prod category without needing a filter to help it along. –<font face="verdana" color="black">[[user:xeno|'''xeno''']]</font>[[user talk:xeno|<font color="black" face="verdana">^talk</font>]] 16:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC) **See [[Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested]]. SoWhy believes that the filter would make his bot run more efficiently. -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]] [[User:King of Hearts|<font color="red">&hearts;</font>]] [[User talk:King of Hearts|<font color="red">&diams;</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/King of Hearts|<font color="black">&clubs;</font>]] &spades; 17:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC) ***I don't think the EF was designed to be, nor should it be, used as part and parcel of a bots' operation. However, if I am alone in this opinion I don't object to the filter being re-enabled, but I would like to see more opinion on this. At present, people who see entries in their edit filter log don't take kindly to it, no matter how much we tell them that it doesn't necessarily mean it's an abusive edit. –<font face="verdana" color="black">[[user:xeno|'''xeno''']]</font>[[user talk:xeno|<font color="black" face="verdana">^talk</font>]] 17:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC) ****I think the filter is useful not only for a bot (the bot in question was previously requested by another user and uses a different mechanism). But I thought we have renamed the abuse filter specifically because not all edits tagged are really abuse and so I thought consensus was by now that filters can be used for any kind of edits, not only abusive ones. I think the filter is useful to highlight the removal of prods for people who watchlist those articles as tags show up much better than simple edits (where the edit summary usually lacks this particular information). It's of course a matter of consensus whether this filter should be enabled but "negative feelings" sounds like a weak argument. The filter serves to make maintenance easier, doesn't it? So such filters cannot be negative per se just because the edits are not abusive. It's similar to [[Special:AbuseFilter/29]] in this regard. Not all edits this filter flags are abusive but it's informative to have. Regards '''[[User:SoWhy|<span style="font-variant:small-caps; color: #AC0000">So</span>]][[User talk:SoWhy|<span style="font-variant:small-caps; color: #35628F">Why</span>]]''' 17:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC) *****Filter 29 tags new users. This one tags all users, so we're going to have a lot of folks generating entries in their EF logs, and a lot more complaints about that. We've renamed the filter yes, but I think that was because that '''in looking for abuse''', it sometimes tags non-abusive edits - not because we should now use it for stuff like this. As I said above, I'm prepared to be wrong on this. –<font face="verdana" color="black">[[user:xeno|'''xeno''']]</font>[[user talk:xeno|<font color="black" face="verdana">^talk</font>]] 17:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC) ******I, too, am prepared to admit to be wrong but I had thought that with the name change and with some filters, consensus changed on this issue. For example, filters {{ef|183}}, {{ef|155}} and {{ef|96}} track contributions that are mostly or always good-faith and non-abusive. Regards '''[[User:SoWhy|<span style="font-variant:small-caps; color: #AC0000">So</span>]][[User talk:SoWhy|<span style="font-variant:small-caps; color: #35628F">Why</span>]]''' 17:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC) &larr; They track good faith contributions that are usually ''wrong'', whereas removing prod warnings (unless you're that abusive socky guy) is almost never wrong. –<font face="verdana" color="black">[[user:xeno|'''xeno''']]</font>[[user talk:xeno|<font color="black" face="verdana">^talk</font>]] 17:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC) :Well, adding links to YouTube is not per se "wrong", is it? People just use them too often but that does not make the edits themselves wrong or abusive and that's the point I want to make. Yes, removing prod templates is almost always correct but imho still useful to know. Regards '''[[User:SoWhy|<span style="font-variant:small-caps; color: #AC0000">So</span>]][[User talk:SoWhy|<span style="font-variant:small-caps; color: #35628F">Why</span>]]''' 17:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC) ::They're usually wrong, being right is the exception. Vice-versa for removing prods, so generating a note in someone's EF log every time they do so isn't a good idea (imo). –<font face="verdana" color="black">[[user:xeno|'''xeno''']]</font>[[user talk:xeno|<font color="black" face="verdana">^talk</font>]] 17:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC) :::The [[Wikipedia:Article alerts|Article alerts]] bot can track prods without needing a special edit filter in place so I don't see why another bot couldn't also do so. That said, I'm not even sure a bot is needed to notify someone of removed prods, they can just as easily add the article to their watchlist.<br />As for Youtube links, I'm unfortunately all too familiar with that filter as I got involved with the discussion over that one when it was extended in an attempt to track torrent links (which was later removed as it is unworkable and unnecessary). I added a valid Youtube link awhile back where a software developer was discussing software functionality. Even though that might be the "exception", and even though it is a perfectly acceptable link (actually used as an inline citation), having it show up in the log with my contribs makes it seem like I did something wrong there too. --[[User:Tothwolf|Tothwolf]] ([[User talk:Tothwolf|talk]]) 18:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC) ::::I would like a way to track deprods. If it can't be added back to the edit filter, then is there another way to have a global list of all deprods? It is useful for seeing if articles can be improved after a deprod, if the deprodding editor didn't, for spotting serial deprodding that may be disruptive, and for filtering deprodded articles into AfD discussions if appropriate. [[User:Fences and windows|<span style="color:red;">Fences</span>]]<span style="color:grey;">&amp;</span>[[User talk:Fences and windows|<span style="background-color:black; color:white;">Windows</span>]] 00:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC) :::::A bot could be written to do this. –<font face="verdana" color="black">[[user:xeno|'''xeno''']]</font>[[user talk:xeno|<font color="black" face="verdana">^talk</font>]] 12:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC) == [[Special:AbuseFilter/212]] == What is the point of this filter? It's generating filter log entries for perfectly appropriate actions. Experienced users tend to edit the final section to add new sections as well. It's annoying, but doesn't warrant an edit filter. –<font face="verdana" color="black">[[user:xeno|'''xeno''']]</font>[[user talk:xeno|<font color="black" face="verdana">^talk</font>]] 17:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC) :Experienced users are exempted by the !autoconfirmed. Also, I recently fixed this filter to remove the false positives; don't look at the ones before July 27. The point of the filter is to make sure new users add headers to their posts, either by clicking "new section" or adding "==" around the header. Yes, experienced users do edit the final section, but if new users do that along with "==", it's not going to get flagged. But what about replying to another post? That's an unavoidable false positive - but wait! It's not a false positive after all, since they're supposed to put colons before it to indent. (I know, no need to hassle over a colon, but the filter just conveniently flags those mistakes as well.) The only real false positive I've seen since the correction was users editing a subpage of their own talk (e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:AbuseLog&details=813605]). -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]] [[User:King of Hearts|<font color="red">&hearts;</font>]] [[User talk:King of Hearts|<font color="red">&diams;</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/King of Hearts|<font color="black">&clubs;</font>]] &spades; 22:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC) ::I think this is an unnecessary drain and (if set to warn and/or disallow) a barrier to new users getting help. It's a minor annoyance and not something we should engage the EF on - imo. –<font face="verdana" color="black">[[user:xeno|'''xeno''']]</font>[[user talk:xeno|<font color="black" face="verdana">^talk</font>]] 22:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC) :::Then the warning should be made as friendly as possible. (Of course it's not going to be disallowed.) I think it would help both the new users (learn how to post on talk pages) and established users (not have to get confused because the post was not under a header). They're going to have to learn anyways, so why not earlier? See [[Special:AbuseFilter/167]]; isn't that "a barrier to new users" creating articles? -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]] [[User:King of Hearts|<font color="red">&hearts;</font>]] [[User talk:King of Hearts|<font color="red">&diams;</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/King of Hearts|<font color="black">&clubs;</font>]] &spades; 23:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC) ::::Well I guess we'll just have to wait for others to weigh in. I'm not a fan of this filter at all. Just as an aside, please do try to ensure your titles are a little more tactful, especially for a filter like this targeting good faith edits (I'm talking about the original title "New user editing user talk page", not the newer, better one). –<font face="verdana" color="black">[[user:xeno|'''xeno''']]</font>[[user talk:xeno|<font color="black" face="verdana">^talk</font>]] 23:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC) :::::Seems odd that KoH [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wknight94&diff=304584335&oldid=304506747 disables] a filter which is designed for a single article and takes barely a millisecond, but then creates this one using more than twice the CPU time for edits that cause no damage at all. I'm baffled. <span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">[[User:Wknight94|<span style="color: #EE5B0D;">Wknight94</span>]] [[User talk:Wknight94|<sup style="color: blue;">talk</sup>]]</span> 03:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC) ::::::Yes, I thought it was a little on the expensive side. –<font face="verdana" color="black">[[user:xeno|'''xeno''']]</font>[[user talk:xeno|<font color="black" face="verdana">^talk</font>]] 03:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC) ::::::But 212 gets over 20 hits a day. It's the hit/runtime ratio that counts. -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]] [[User:King of Hearts|<font color="red">&hearts;</font>]] [[User talk:King of Hearts|<font color="red">&diams;</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/King of Hearts|<font color="black">&clubs;</font>]] &spades; 04:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC) :::::::No, it's ''useful'' hits/runtime ratio that counts. 212 is catching stuff no one cares about, i.e. 0 useful hit ratio. <span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">[[User:Wknight94|<span style="color: #EE5B0D;">Wknight94</span>]] [[User talk:Wknight94|<sup style="color: blue;">talk</sup>]]</span> 14:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC) (unindented) What about [[Special:AbuseFilter/104]]? Placing {{tl|helpme}} signifies that you want help, no matter where you put it. It's just that if you put it in the main namespace, someone will have to clean up after you and find you in the history to know who put it there. (Isn't that what we have to do if someone posts on your talk page, neither adding a header nor signing?) And [[Special:AbuseFilter/211]] is for their own good; 212 is (in addition to making it more convenient for us) also for their own good. To say that it is useless is a bit of an overstatement. Let's say that 153 gives you a small gold coin every month, and 212 gives you a dollar every hour. Which would you rather have? -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]] [[User:King of Hearts|<font color="red">&hearts;</font>]] [[User talk:King of Hearts|<font color="red">&diams;</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/King of Hearts|<font color="black">&clubs;</font>]] &spades; 16:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC) :104 prevents garbage from going in the mainspace. 211 saves people getting spammed. 212 ... what does it do? Have you been following up the logged reports and teaching users how to use talk pages? They'll learn to use talk pages eventually, there's no need for a an expensive filter. It should be disabled. –<font face="verdana" color="black">[[user:xeno|'''xeno''']]</font>[[user talk:xeno|<font color="black" face="verdana">^talk</font>]] 16:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC) ::Let's go back to the example of 167. What harm does that do? -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]] [[User:King of Hearts|<font color="red">&hearts;</font>]] [[User talk:King of Hearts|<font color="red">&diams;</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/King of Hearts|<font color="black">&clubs;</font>]] &spades; 16:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC) :::According to the filter, the need to "brute forc[e] through thousands of submissions to locate [the malformed request]" . –<font face="verdana" color="black">[[user:xeno|'''xeno''']]</font>[[user talk:xeno|<font color="black" face="verdana">^talk</font>]] 16:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC) :I also don't see much use in this filter. The edit filter really shouldn't be used to teach newbies how to use talk pages. --[[User:Conti|Conti]]|[[User talk:Conti|✉]] 16:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC) ::Seeing that there is no support for this EF, I've disabled it. Question: would it be beneficial to modify [[MediaWiki:Talkpagetext]] to teach them to use talk pages? -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]] [[User:King of Hearts|<font color="red">&hearts;</font>]] [[User talk:King of Hearts|<font color="red">&diams;</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/King of Hearts|<font color="black">&clubs;</font>]] &spades; 17:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC) :::The first link there leads to an explanation of talk pages and the use of the same. I assume most newbies don't read stuff like this and will just do what they're planning on anyway. –<font face="verdana" color="black">[[user:xeno|'''xeno''']]</font>[[user talk:xeno|<font color="black" face="verdana">^talk</font>]] 17:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC) BTW, go ahead and disable [[Special:AbuseFilter/104]] too for that matter. That looks almost as useless. And is it really taking over 7ms for that?! Unreal what my little 1ms filter is being shut off in favor of... <span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">[[User:Wknight94|<span style="color: #EE5B0D;">Wknight94</span>]] [[User talk:Wknight94|<sup style="color: blue;">talk</sup>]]</span> 18:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC) :{{Done}}. Was actually 9.1ms at the time of disabling. {{tl|helpme}} templates, by their very nature, will quickly draw users to their erroneous usage. No need for a filter. –<font face="verdana" color="black">[[user:xeno|'''xeno''']]</font>[[user talk:xeno|<font color="black" face="verdana">^talk</font>]] 13:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC) == Retrieving new wikitext for a disallowed edit from the filter log == How can we do that ? Simple copy/paste doesn't preserve spaces (and when you get interminable tables...). See [[Wikipedia:Edit_filter/False_positives#Lipidresearch|here]] for such a request. [[User:Cenarium|Cenarium]] ([[User talk:Cenarium|talk]]) 04:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC) == Lamest catch ever == OMG, you're kidding? There's a filter that tags users that put an [[ellipsis]] on user talk pages! Edit filter 135 might be the lamest thing I've found on en.wiki to date. It probably started by tagging everyone's signatures. --[[Special:Contributions/69.226.103.13|69.226.103.13]] ([[User talk:69.226.103.13|talk]]) 21:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC) :You've got one period too many in your ellipsis... –<font face="verdana" color="black">[[user:xeno|'''xeno''']]</font>[[user talk:xeno|<font color="black" face="verdana">^talk</font>]] 21:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC) ::No, it's an ellipsis at the end of a terminal sentence, 4 is the correct number of dots for such an ellipsis. --[[Special:Contributions/69.226.103.13|69.226.103.13]] ([[User talk:69.226.103.13|talk]]) 06:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC) :::It wasn't the ellipsis, it was the <nowiki></big> </big> </big> </big> </big> </big></big></big></nowiki> used in the previous paragraph by an earlier poster. Unfortunately, the edit filter mechanism doesn't let us isolate exactly what the changes were, it includes the paragraph before and after as well - just like a [[WP:DIFF]] I imagine. As in other reports, this was just an informative tag that assists in catching a lot of vandalism. Non-vandals can safely ignore. <span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">[[User:Wknight94|<span style="color: #EE5B0D;">Wknight94</span>]] [[User talk:Wknight94|<sup style="color: blue;">talk</sup>]]</span> 09:09, 31 July 2009 (UTC) ::::But, non vandals will continue to be so tagged. I'm tired of being tagged as a vandal and being told to ignore it and get over it. And, it's a permanent record on this account, but, there's no note saying it wasn't vandalism. This is totally pointless. You don't catch vandals by irritating good editors. Or if you do, then anybody can edit is a lie. --[[Special:Contributions/68.127.233.138|68.127.233.138]] ([[User talk:68.127.233.138|talk]]) 04:39, 1 August 2009 (UTC) :::::You know, I'm reasonably sure I've been tagged a few times, and I'm an administrator. Seriously, it does not matter. [[User:J.delanoy|<font color="green">J'''.'''delanoy</font>]][[User Talk:J.delanoy|^{<font color="red">gabs</font>}]][[Special:Contributions/J.delanoy|<font color="blue">_adds</font>]] 04:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC) ::::::Okay, maybe it doesn't matter ''to you''. Is it necessary to tell me what matters to me? I don't tell you what matters to you. --[[Special:Contributions/68.127.233.138|68.127.233.138]] ([[User talk:68.127.233.138|talk]]) 04:46, 1 August 2009 (UTC) :::::::What exactly do you hope to accomplish by posting every time you get tagged wrongly? We are not going to disable it, if that's what you are aiming at. [[User:J.delanoy|<font color="green">J'''.'''delanoy</font>]][[User Talk:J.delanoy|^{<font color="red">gabs</font>}]][[Special:Contributions/J.delanoy|<font color="blue">_adds</font>]] 04:49, 1 August 2009 (UTC) I hope to make others see how lame and pointless it is. And how pointless to have a permanent record of programming incompetence. Because that's what it really is. Not an edit filter. An edit filter tags the edit, not a random nearby edit. An edit filter tag gives the correct information, not a permanent records of programming incompetence that assigns a tag to a neighboring, unrelated edit. --[[Special:Contributions/68.127.233.138|68.127.233.138]] ([[User talk:68.127.233.138|talk]]) 05:49, 1 August 2009 (UTC) :It's not personal. It is just a piece of [[metadata]] along side the edit. It is not incriminating or a sign of definite abuse, nor is it something to be treated as such. It is simply a note that a snippet of code matches against the edit. Tags are only different from the internal log in that they are publicly viewable. Again, it's not personal. -- [[User:Cobi|Cobi]]^{([[User talk:Cobi|t]]|[[Special:Contributions/Cobi|c]]|[[User:ClueBot Commons/Bots|b]])} 06:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC) ::No, they're designed to catch vandals. That's what they were first called. I'm not a vandal. There's no need to improperly add tags to my edits that imply I've done something that needed to be tagged, particularly when it's not even my edit but the edit ''before'' mine that triggered the tagging. If it's nothing, don't tag it. If it's something, don't tag it indiscriminately. --[[Special:Contributions/68.127.233.138|68.127.233.138]] ([[User talk:68.127.233.138|talk]]) 06:18, 1 August 2009 (UTC) :Since the EF has been on there have been no Hagger edits, which means my watchlist isn't filled with redlinks to stupid vandalised pagemoves, if the price for that is that you are tagged for a minor edit (which can be seen by anyone who checks is nothing, and not vandalism) then I don't care if it tags every single edit on Wikipedia, because unless you have been a registered user and had to wake up each morning to fifty Hagger page moves then the current situation of a couple of innocent tags is worth it. Now stop complaining and get back to editing. [[User:Darrenhusted|Darrenhusted]] ([[User talk:Darrenhusted|talk]]) 11:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC) ::You sure that's why and how the Hagger page moves were stopped? I have been a registered user. The Hagger page moves stopped appearing in edit histories before these edit filter tags started, since I quit my registered name a while ago-assumed puberty had hit. So, are they related? Where is that mission statement? Don't see it anywhere. Again, if that's the purpose, to stop the Hagger page moves, then stop tagging me. And I'll edit if and when I want to, and voice concerns over problem areas as I see fit. --[[Special:Contributions/68.127.233.138|68.127.233.138]] ([[User talk:68.127.233.138|talk]]) 02:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC) ::Yes the Hagger page moves were stopped by the Edit filter. [[User:Darrenhusted|Darrenhusted]] ([[User talk:Darrenhusted|talk]]) 11:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC) :::And, after they were stopped, then the edit filters continued because, after all, there are so many more Hagger moves? To honor the Hagger vandal? I'm still pretty sure it's due to puberty, or mommy needing a little extra help around the house. --[[Special:Contributions/68.127.233.138|68.127.233.138]] ([[User talk:68.127.233.138|talk]]) 05:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC) ::::Yes, we get it, Hagger was a pre-pubescent boy, problem was that contantly having to delete and undo those edits took up a lot of man hours, so the EF stops them, and for that we are grateful, apart from you, who seems to have a problem which would only be solved by disabling something the community voted to enable. [[User:Darrenhusted|Darrenhusted]] ([[User talk:Darrenhusted|talk]]) 13:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC) :::::Yes, of course, the voice of dissent is evil, or at least lacking in gratitude, a quality all proper humans should have... The usual disambiguation into nothingness as a voice of concern is put down. En.wiki had lofty goals that included a community spirit. One vandal changes all that, and turns editors onto personal attacks to defend the change. How sad. --[[Special:Contributions/68.127.233.138|68.127.233.138]] ([[User talk:68.127.233.138|talk]]) 02:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC) :::Did you ever consider that if you are the only person who thinks something is a problem, then maybe it is not really a problem? Because I don't see anyone other than you "voicing concerns" about this. [[User:J.delanoy|<font color="green">J'''.'''delanoy</font>]][[User Talk:J.delanoy|^{<font color="red">gabs</font>}]][[Special:Contributions/J.delanoy|<font color="blue">_adds</font>]] 03:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC) ::::Why, because you're not reading other writers complaints? Because you're not looking for them? Because you want to hassle me about my complaints but not bother with other posters who continue to comment about how poorly designed and implemented the filters are? I'll go ahead and keep pointing them out as long as they are inaccurate, poorly designed, and don't do what they were intended to do in addition to inaccurately doing what they intended to do. ::::Or maybe, like the filters, you aren't identifying the correct edits? --[[Special:Contributions/68.127.233.138|68.127.233.138]] ([[User talk:68.127.233.138|talk]]) 05:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC) ::::Everyone gets tagged, but if the edits aren't vandalism then editors move on, something you seem to have a problem doing. There may have been a few complaints but for the amount of vandalism prevented a few false positives are worth it. [[User:Darrenhusted|Darrenhusted]] ([[User talk:Darrenhusted|talk]]) 13:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC) :::::You're here. And, now that we've moved into discussing the person (my "problem moving on"), not the issue, maybe we should continue in like vein about other personal issues? :::::It's interesting how many personal attacks my dislike of the poorly designed edit filters gather. The surprise? No better programming of the filters to do what they were designed to do, no supporting links about their designs, no supporting links about their success. And the effort expended to justify the poorly designed filters never extends to fixing the programming. Just personal attacks, eventually. Sure, personally attacking me for pointing out what is wrong with the filtes is easier than fixing them. Programming well is a difficult skill, not randomly available on en.wiki. :::::One way to move on in cyber space is to stop. It's often passed over for the opportunity to accuse someone else of failing to move on. --[[Special:Contributions/68.127.233.138|68.127.233.138]] ([[User talk:68.127.233.138|talk]]) 01:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC) ::::Except that in the last four days you have done nothing other than comment on bots and here, you haven't actually edited any articles. "poorly designed filters"? This would be true if the EF were blocking users incorrectly or disrupting those who are making a contribution, but most of the time if you get caught in a filter (repeating characters, move vandalism, section blanking being the most common) then the truth is you are probably a vandal, but it is still left to editors to decide if the edit was vandalism. So as you are a lone voice complaining about something editors feel is being handled fine by the EF, you talk about how "En.wiki had lofty goals that included a community spirit.", and we do, for those who make a contribution, so far you have not. This is not a personal attack, simply a suggestion: try editing some articles. [[User:Darrenhusted|Darrenhusted]] ([[User talk:Darrenhusted|talk]]) 11:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC) == [[WP:FFD]] and Image_name.ext == Think we could have a filter to detect the placing of FFD templates with Image_name.ext as their filename on the FFD page to trigger a warning message? <span style="border:1px solid #f57900;padding:1px;"><font style="color:#8f5902">[[User:ViperSnake151|ViperSnake151]]</font> [[User_talk:ViperSnake151|<font style="color:#fff;background:#fcaf3e;">&nbsp;Talk&nbsp;</font>]] </span> 22:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC) == Efficiency == Am I correct in understanding that when targeting one or a small group of articles, putting the check for the article ID's first makes for the most efficient use of the filter? -- [[User:Avraham|Avi]] ([[User talk:Avraham|talk]]) 14:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC) :Yup. I believe the more "rare" it is, the further up it should go.[[User:Smallman12q|Smallman12q]] ([[User talk:Smallman12q|talk]]) 20:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC) == Request for "edit filter managers" permission == {{discussion top}} {{userlinks|Jakew}} I'd like to request the "edit filter managers" permission. As can be seen from [[User talk:Avraham#Abuse filter]] (and my [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=&page=User%3AJakew&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=&hide_patrol_log=1 log]), this was previously assigned to me for a few hours. The permission was removed citing need for discussion; hence this thread. It was originally granted in response to my volunteering to roll up my sleeves and learn how to create a filter rule, something which interests me and I believe would be helpful to the project. Thanks to [[User:Avraham]], my idea became what is now rule #216. I'm happy to answer any questions. As a brief overview, I've been editing Wikipedia since 2004. I'm trained as a computer software engineer, and have an engineer's sense of caution. I understand that modifying an edit filter is a serious undertaking, and if granted this permission I'm likely to err on the side of caution. Thanks, [[User:Jakew|Jakew]] ([[User talk:Jakew|talk]]) 16:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC) :Can someone please explain rule #216? [[User:DanBlackham|DanBlackham]] ([[User talk:DanBlackham|talk]]) 15:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC) ::Sure. There has been a particular form of anon vandalism for a long time now. Follow the link brought in the note section for an example. Right now, #216 is set up to log instances of that particular form of vandalism, which currently is met by immediate reversion. If the vandalism remains semi-regular, and the filter catches it properly, the idea is to prevent that particular kind of edit. -- [[User:Avraham|Avi]] ([[User talk:Avraham|talk]]) 15:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC) :I certainly see no problem in granting it to Jake. I guess this is a stupid question and in the wrong place, but Jake, have you thought of running for adminship? You only RFA attempt was two and a half years ago and at first blush you candidacy does seem possible. '''[[User:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFFF00;background-color: #0000FF;'>MBisanz</span>]]''' ^{[[User talk:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFA500;'>talk</span>]]} 16:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC) ::Thanks, MBisanz. I don't think it's a stupid question. To answer briefly, I'm not quite ready to request adminship again just yet, as I think some of the concerns that were raised in my first [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jakew|RfA]], namely the need for a broader range of edits including those in the WP namespace, are still valid. [[User:Jakew|Jakew]] ([[User talk:Jakew|talk]]) 18:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC) :::Okey, fair enough. Assuming no one else comments in the next couple of hours, I'll assign you the userright. '''[[User:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFFF00;background-color: #0000FF;'>MBisanz</span>]]''' ^{[[User talk:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFA500;'>talk</span>]]} 19:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC) :::I originally assigned the userright, incorrectly in hindsight as I was in ignorant of the "Cobi" decision, thus I would support the addition of the right as well. -- [[User:Avraham|Avi]] ([[User talk:Avraham|talk]]) 19:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC) :Ok, {{done}} '''[[User:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFFF00;background-color: #0000FF;'>MBisanz</span>]]''' ^{[[User talk:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFA500;'>talk</span>]]} 01:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC) Sounds good! [[User:Prodego|<font color="darkgreen">''Prodego''</font>]] ^{[[User talk:Prodego|<font color="darkgreen">talk</font>]]} 01:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC) {{discussion bottom}} == Question == In the [[Special:AbuseFilter]] page, the consqeuence column has the actions taken by the filter, such as warn, tag, and disallow. But I'm uncertain about what happens for the action "Block autopromote" and "Throttle". Can anyone explain about this? Thanks, -- [[User:Polynomial123|科学高爾夫迷]]([[User talk:Polynomial123|讨论]]|[[Special:Contributions/Polynomial123|投稿]]) 02:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC) :I'm not too sure about "throttle", but "block autopromote" stops new users from getting the "autoconfirmed" status which is normally granted after 4 days and 10 edits. →<font style="color:black">'''javért'''</font> ^{[[user talk:Javert|<font style="color:red">'''stargaze'''</font>]]} 04:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC) :Throttle is for throttling certain actions to X per Y. -- [[User:Cobi|Cobi]]^{([[User talk:Cobi|t]]|[[Special:Contributions/Cobi|c]]|[[User:ClueBot Commons/Bots|b]])} 04:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC) ::Okay, so what does "throttling" mean without using the word "throttle?" --[[Special:Contributions/68.127.233.138|68.127.233.138]] ([[User talk:68.127.233.138|talk]]) 05:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC) :::I believe it is limiting the number of performances of a given action. For example, only 1 edit in the next 60 seconds. -- [[User:Avraham|Avi]] ([[User talk:Avraham|talk]]) 05:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC) ::::Lets say there is a vandal moving pages to names containing 'rock'. Well we can't block all moves to page titles containing 'rock'. But, we could use throttle such that anyone who moves more than 2 pages to titles containing 'rock' per 5 minutes triggers a filter. Then we could set that filter to disallow the move. [[User:Prodego|<font color="darkgreen">''Prodego''</font>]] ^{[[User talk:Prodego|<font color="darkgreen">talk</font>]]} 05:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC) :::Nevermind, it's a limit not an action. That's what happens when you try and answer questions at 2AM :} -- [[User:Avraham|Avi]] ([[User talk:Avraham|talk]]) 05:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC) ::::What I described above is the throttle action. Throttle in conjunction with disallow will create a true throttle, limiting the number of actions that can be done per some period of time. This would be similar to the built in ratelimit. [[User:Prodego|<font color="darkgreen">''Prodego''</font>]] ^{[[User talk:Prodego|<font color="darkgreen">talk</font>]]} 05:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC) So, "throttle" means to limit the number of times someone can do something. Your 2AM edit was fine, Avi. --[[Special:Contributions/68.127.233.138|68.127.233.138]] ([[User talk:68.127.233.138|talk]]) 02:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC) == Diffs? == Is there a way to get actual "regular" diffs for filtered actions (a filter that logs but does not prevent an edit). The "details" link gives a ''kind'' of diff, but I'm not sure how to get a regular diff of the edit except to go to the page and get it manually. [[User talk:Thatcher|Thatcher]] 13:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC) :No, you have to go to the page (easiest way is via the contribs link). [[User:Prodego|<font color="darkgreen">''Prodego''</font>]] ^{[[User talk:Prodego|<font color="darkgreen">talk</font>]]} 16:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC) == Edit warring enforcement == I think it would be ideal if an edit filter could be created for every article. That way, not every edit will have to go through the entire sequence of filters just for one instance. In the meantime, however, I believe that we could have certain "temporary" filters (e.g. reserve 221-230, and have them normally set on disabled) designed to block certain users from editing certain pages for a certain duration. The syntax would be like: (user_name = "King of Hearts") & (article_text = "Main Page") & (timestamp < 1249362000) set to disallow Because blocks are intended to be preventative, not punitive, this cures the problems with blocking (prevents the user from editing only the disputed page) and page protection (innocent users aren't affected). How does this idea sound? (If you believe this wastes too much resources, then also comment on whether you would support this idea if article-specific filters were created.) -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]] [[User:King of Hearts|<font color="red">&hearts;</font>]] [[User talk:King of Hearts|<font color="red">&diams;</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/King of Hearts|<font color="black">&clubs;</font>]] &spades; 23:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC) :You mean filters that would enforce [[Wikipedia:Editing restrictions]]? I don't really think that's what the edit filter was created for. The current system of blocking users who break/ignore their restrictions seems to work quite fine. --[[User:Conti|Conti]]|[[User talk:Conti|✉]] 13:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC) == Requesting permission == <div class="boilerplate metadata discussion-archived" style="background-color: #f5f3ef; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;"> :''The following discussion is archived. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.'' {{#if:Granted per consensus. '''[[User:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFFF00;background-color: #0000FF;'>MBisanz</span>]]''' ^{[[User talk:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFA500;'>talk</span>]]} 03:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)|''A summary of the conclusions reached follows.'' ::Granted per consensus. '''[[User:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFFF00;background-color: #0000FF;'>MBisanz</span>]]''' ^{[[User talk:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFA500;'>talk</span>]]} 03:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC) ---- }} <!-- from Template:discussion top--> [[User:Avraham|Avi]] pointed me here as the appropriate place to request permission to edit the AbuseFilter. The main reason I'm asking is that I often deal with [[:Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Scibaby | Scibaby socks]] and think that my experience could be helpful in fine-tuning the filter. Let me know if you need any info on my technical background or if you have other questions. Thanks - [[User:Short Brigade Harvester Boris|Short Brigade Harvester Boris]] ([[User talk:Short Brigade Harvester Boris|talk]]) 00:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC) *'''Support''' - You look fine. We'll see what the others say. -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]] [[User:King of Hearts|<font color="red">&hearts;</font>]] [[User talk:King of Hearts|<font color="red">&diams;</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/King of Hearts|<font color="black">&clubs;</font>]] &spades; 00:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC) *'''Support''' Very helpful with Scibaby sock identification. Let's see what he can do to improve Abuse filter 205. <span style="background:white;color:#007FFF;font-family:Georgia;">[[User:Nishkid64|Nishkid64]] </span>_{([[User talk:Nishkid64|Make articles, not wikidrama]])} 01:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC) *Support, edit filters have to be better than Raul's obscene range-blocking, and you seem to be very good at detecting the socks. [[User:Daniel|Daniel]] ([[User talk:Daniel|talk]]) 01:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC) *'''Support''' (<sotto voice in Russian accent>"It serves him RIGHT"</sotto voice in Russian accent>) [[file:face-devil-grin.svg|25px]] -- [[User:Avraham|Avi]] ([[User talk:Avraham|talk]]) 01:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC) :''The above discussion is preserved as an archive. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.''<!-- from Template:discussion bottom --></div> == Requests for permissions == There have now been a few non-admins asking for access. Should we make a subpage at [[Wikipedia:Requests for permissions]] and direct them there to make their request? -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]] [[User:King of Hearts|<font color="red">&hearts;</font>]] [[User talk:King of Hearts|<font color="red">&diams;</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/King of Hearts|<font color="black">&clubs;</font>]] &spades; 03:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC) :The only problem I see with that is RFPERM may not be watched by as many folks who are familiar with the EF and thus might not be able to vet candidates as well. (Though I notice we haven't really been doing much vetting as it is...no trick regex questions? no filter test case questions? =) –<font face="verdana" color="black">[[user:xeno|'''xeno''']]</font>[[user talk:xeno|<font color="black" face="verdana">^talk</font>]] 03:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC) ::What's regex (/me ducks) -- [[User:Avraham|Avi]] ([[User talk:Avraham|talk]]) 06:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC) :::Well it's not as if those of you with the permission [[User:Dragons flight/oops|have much grasp of regexes either]] (and that list hasn't even been updated since April) [[User:Gurch|Gurch]] ([[User talk:Gurch|talk]]) 23:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC) :I don't think you need to as so few users are going to get edit filter permission anyway because it's too easy to [[FUBAR]] up the site with it.--[[User:Otterathome|Otterathome]] ([[User talk:Otterathome|talk]]) 06:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC) :I still think this right is rare enough that granting it like we do IPBE (informal discussion at the subject matter area) is preferable to the [[WP:PERM]] page. Once the volume gets larger here, I would suggest moving it. '''[[User:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFFF00;background-color: #0000FF;'>MBisanz</span>]]''' ^{[[User talk:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFA500;'>talk</span>]]} 15:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC) == Requested Edit Filters == Hi there all, I was looking at edit filters today and noticed something on the requested page, so I figured I would give it a shot. Could the filter at [[Special:AbuseFilter/103]] be replaced with this? <code> !("sysop" in USER_GROUPS) & <br> (article_namespace == 0) & <br> (("uncyclopedia" in lcase(added_lines)) & <br> ("oscar wilde" in lcase(added_lines)) & <br> (("uncyclopedia" in lcase(old_wikitext)) | <br> ("oscar wilde" in lcase(old_wikitext))) <br> </code> I changed the user_group to sysop because I figured that there isn't really a reason for a rollbacker, autoconfirmed user, etc to add the words to an article that doesn't already contain them. Any tips, suggestions, or comments are welcome. :) Thanks for reading, <font color="green">[[User:MacMed|'''MacMed''']]</font>^{<font color="red">[[User talk:MacMed|talk]]</font>}_{<font color="black">[[Special:Contributions/MacMed|stalk]]</font>} 05:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC) :What is "oscar wilde"? [[User:Ruslik0|Ruslik]]_[[User Talk:Ruslik0|<span style="color:red">Zero</span>]] 11:19, 7 August 2009 (UTC) ::The Uncyclopedia site commonly uses quotes (real and imaginary) from Oscar Wilde. Looking at it, I changes the OR operator (|) between the "uncyclopedia" condition and the "oscar wilde" condition to an AND operator, since additions of Oscar Wilde on his own would create too many false positives. So perhaps a new rule for this, since not all Uncyclopedia additions will mention Oscar Wilde. Regards, <font color="green">[[User:MacMed|'''MacMed''']]</font>^{<font color="red">[[User talk:MacMed|talk]]</font>}_{<font color="black">[[Special:Contributions/MacMed|stalk]]</font>} 14:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC) I believe that the above code would return a hit any time a section containing the word "Oscar Wilde" is edited, even if it is not removed, as it is returned in the added_lines section. Also, why is the filter being triggered if "oscar wilde" is already in the old wikitext? It should be when the words are not already there (missing a ! it seems). -- [[User:Avraham|Avi]] ([[User talk:Avraham|talk]]) 15:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC) Actually, would this be better? <pre> !("autoconfirmed" in user_groups) & article_namespace = 0 & count("uncyclopedia",lcase(added_lines)) > count("uncyclopedia",lcase(removed_lines)) </pre> -- [[User:Avraham|Avi]] ([[User talk:Avraham|talk]]) 15:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC) But what if somebody is adding the word Uncyclopedia to a section of the Uncyclopedia article? The lines they take out may not neccessarily contain "uncyclopedia", but they are adding it, so the filter would still trip with a false positive, would it not? And by the way, yes I was missing the ! in the old code. Regards, <font color="green">[[User:MacMed|'''MacMed''']]</font>^{<font color="red">[[User talk:MacMed|talk]]</font>}_{<font color="black">[[Special:Contributions/MacMed|stalk]]</font>} 15:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC) :If that is a problem solely in that article, it's simple enough to add a trap to ignore "Uncyclopedia". Also, if what you really want is not to trip the filter any time the word "uncyclopedia" already exists in the article, I'd put "!("uncyclopedia" in lcase(old_wikitext))" first, to take advantage of the short-circuit evaluation. Since EVERY time it exists you want the filter to fail, but /not/ every time it is added you want it to succeed. -- [[User:Avraham|Avi]] ([[User talk:Avraham|talk]]) 15:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC) So something like this: <pre> !("autoconfirmed" in USER_GROUPS) & !("uncyclopedia" in lcase(old_wikitext)) & (article_namespace = 0) & count("uncyclopedia",lcase(added_lines)) > count("uncyclopedia",lcase(removed_lines)) </pre> might work? <font color="green">[[User:MacMed|'''MacMed''']]</font>^{<font color="red">[[User talk:MacMed|talk]]</font>}_{<font color="black">[[Special:Contributions/MacMed|stalk]]</font>} 15:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC) :KoH, DF, and Prodego are wizards at optimization, but I think this would be a bit better: <pre> !("autoconfirmed" in USER_GROUPS) & ((article_namespace = 0) & ( !("uncyclopedia" in lcase(old_wikitext)) & (count("uncyclopedia",lcase(added_lines)) > count("uncyclopedia",lcase(removed_lines)) ) ) ) </pre> :Although the additional parenthases are considered an extra heck, it also groups together the operations for short-circuiting purposes. This way, while a true edit would end up with something like 9 checks on the edit, at any point it fails except the very end, it short circuits, so if the user is autoconfirmed, there is only one check; a non-autoconfirmed IP in any space but article dies after only 3 checks, and so on. "In", IIRC, is a more resource intensive check, so I think it should go later than the first two. I'd like someone more proficient than I to comment, though :) -- [[User:Avraham|Avi]] ([[User talk:Avraham|talk]]) 16:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC) 'oscar wilde' ''and'' 'uncyclopedia' both need to be detected at the same time.--[[User:Otterathome|Otterathome]] ([[User talk:Otterathome|talk]]) 16:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC) So what about: <pre> !("autoconfirmed" in USER_GROUPS) & ((article_namespace = 0) & ( !("uncyclopedia" in lcase(old_wikitext)) & (count("uncyclopedia",lcase(added_lines)) > count("uncyclopedia",lcase(removed_lines)) & ( !("oscar wilde" in lcase(old_wikitext)) & (count("oscar wilde",lcase(added_line)) > count("oscar wilde",lcase(removed_lines)) ) ) ) </pre> Could that work? <font color="green">[[User:MacMed|'''MacMed''']]</font>^{<font color="red">[[User talk:MacMed|talk]]</font>}_{<font color="black">[[Special:Contributions/MacMed|stalk]]</font>} 17:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC) I think this would be better, but I'd like to hear someone more experienced than I on its efficiency: <pre> !("autoconfirmed" in USER_GROUPS) & ((article_namespace = 0) & (!("uncyclopedia" in lcase(old_wikitext)) & (count("uncyclopedia",lcase(added_lines)) > count("uncyclopedia",lcase(removed_lines)))) & (!("oscar wilde" in lcase(old_wikitext)) & (count("oscar wilde",lcase(added_lines)) > count("oscar wilde",lcase(removed_lines)))) ) </pre> -- [[User:Avraham|Avi]] ([[User talk:Avraham|talk]]) 17:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC) It is not supose to be a replacement for [[Special:AbuseFilter/103]] as that filter is working great but has tripped ''some'' inappropriate, though good faith edits so cannot be set to Disallow. This is an additional filter that detects and disallows edits that cannot possibly be done in good faith and cannot possibly be constructive edits.--[[User:Otterathome|Otterathome]] ([[User talk:Otterathome|talk]]) 17:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC) Perhaps we could do a regex: <tt><nowiki>{{Q|.*?|Oscar Wilde}}</nowiki></tt>. This would be an OR condition, since {{tl|Q}} is not used for quotations on Wikipedia. -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]] [[User:King of Hearts|<font color="red">&hearts;</font>]] [[User talk:King of Hearts|<font color="red">&diams;</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/King of Hearts|<font color="black">&clubs;</font>]] &spades; 17:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC) :How would you escape the text in the regex so that the | in the template isn't seen as an OR by the regex? <font color="green">[[User:MacMed|'''MacMed''']]</font>^{<font color="red">[[User talk:MacMed|talk]]</font>}_{<font color="black">[[Special:Contributions/MacMed|stalk]]</font>} 22:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC) ::Oops, I meant <tt><nowiki>{{Q\|.*?\|Oscar Wilde}}</nowiki></tt>. -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]] [[User:King of Hearts|<font color="red">&hearts;</font>]] [[User talk:King of Hearts|<font color="red">&diams;</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/King of Hearts|<font color="black">&clubs;</font>]] &spades; 21:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC) If it's that much trouble then there's no need, as [[Special:AbuseFilter/103]] will pick it up, but it only warns the user. Putting it to disallow would be risky.--[[User:Otterathome|Otterathome]] ([[User talk:Otterathome|talk]]) 09:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC) :There's absolutely no good reason to display a question mark with two parameters, the second of which is "Oscar Wilde." -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]] [[User:King of Hearts|<font color="red">&hearts;</font>]] [[User talk:King of Hearts|<font color="red">&diams;</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/King of Hearts|<font color="black">&clubs;</font>]] &spades; 16:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC) Another vandal edit just happened again that this filter would have disallowed[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chuck_E._Cheese%27s&diff=prev&oldid=307425398].--[[User:Otterathome|Otterathome]] ([[User talk:Otterathome|talk]]) 21:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC) == [[Special:AbuseFilter/131]] == I am probably doing something wrong, but I can not make the filter work on [[Rorschach test]] article. The filter does catch anything. [[User:Ruslik0|Ruslik]]_[[User Talk:Ruslik0|<span style="color:red">Zero</span>]] 12:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC) :(regex noob, but...) Shouldn't <code>[01][0-9]</code> be <code>([01]|[0-9])</code> ? –<font face="verdana" color="black">[[user:xeno|'''xeno''']]</font>[[user talk:xeno|<font color="black" face="verdana">^talk</font>]] 12:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC) ::I'm no regex expert, but I don't think so. Since the set (0,1,2,...9) includes the set (0,1), <code>([01]|[0-9])</code> is equivalent to <code>[0-9]</code>. <code>[01][0-9]</code> should catch all two-digit sequences from "00" to "19". I'd guess that's probably what's wanted. I've no idea as to the problem, unfortunately... [[User:Jakew|Jakew]] ([[User talk:Jakew|talk]]) 12:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC) ::: Yes, I meant exactly this. [[User:Ruslik0|Ruslik]]_[[User Talk:Ruslik0|<span style="color:red">Zero</span>]] 12:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC) ::::kk. As I said... regex n00b... just throwing it out there. –<font face="verdana" color="black">[[user:xeno|'''xeno''']]</font>[[user talk:xeno|<font color="black" face="verdana">^talk</font>]] 12:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC) :Could admins please get into the habit of noting where the consensus was formed for such an action as preventing users from removing an image? :) --[[User:Conti|Conti]]|[[User talk:Conti|✉]] 13:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC) ::On [[Talk:Rorschach_test]]. [[User:Ruslik0|Ruslik]]_[[User Talk:Ruslik0|<span style="color:red">Zero</span>]] 15:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC) :::That page is currently 348 kilobytes long. Could you be a bit more specific? Anyhow, my point was that such a link should be provided when the filter is modified/created, as a courtesy to those that have not followed the issue. --[[User:Conti|Conti]]|[[User talk:Conti|✉]] 15:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC) :::: Banner at the top of the article. [[User:Ruslik0|Ruslik]]_[[User Talk:Ruslik0|<span style="color:red">Zero</span>]] 16:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC) :::::Which of the 10 banners? ;) Nah, found it now, thanks. --[[User:Conti|Conti]]|[[User talk:Conti|✉]] 17:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC) The problem was in the following expression (article_text == "Muhammad" | article_text == "Temple garment" | article_text == "Endowment (Latter Day Saints)" | article_text == "Rorschach test" ) As I discovered, after the word "test" and before the " mark there was an invisible symbol. After I typed the title manually without copy-pasting the filter [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:AbuseLog&wpSearchFilter=131 began to work]. [[User:Ruslik0|Ruslik]]_[[User Talk:Ruslik0|<span style="color:red">Zero</span>]] 18:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC) :Not that I am endorsing this filter, but the overlay image can still be removed, FWIW [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rorschach_test&diff=prev&oldid=306649518]. –<font face="verdana" color="black">[[user:xeno|'''xeno''']]</font>[[user talk:xeno|<font color="black" face="verdana">^talk</font>]] 19:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC) :: Not now. [[User:Ruslik0|Ruslik]]_[[User Talk:Ruslik0|<span style="color:red">Zero</span>]] 19:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC) The titling seems inefficient, why not <code>(contains_any(article_text,"Muhammad","Temple garment","Endowment (Latter Day Saints)","Rorschach test")</code> Would using article_articleid be faster?(There's no documentation={)[[User:Smallman12q|Smallman12q]] ([[User talk:Smallman12q|talk]]) 01:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC) == Filter 139 == Filter {{abf|139}} prevents fixed position vandalism. It should generally disallow for userspace because of userboxes and other transcluded content, but users should be allowed to use this in their own userspace. Any idea how to allow this ? article_text shouldn't simply contain user_name, otherwise it could be circumvented using user names contained in the targeted username. So either it should be the userpage or "User:user_name/" should be contained in "article_prefixedtext", but the edit filter doesn't seem to handle. [[User:Cenarium|Cenarium]] ([[User talk:Cenarium|talk]]) 15:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC) :{{done}}. Just a little bit inefficient, but I couldn't think of a better way to group the two checks into one. -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]] [[User:King of Hearts|<font color="red">&hearts;</font>]] [[User talk:King of Hearts|<font color="red">&diams;</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/King of Hearts|<font color="black">&clubs;</font>]] &spades; 18:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC) == Request for abusefilter(editfilter) permissions == I'd like to make a request for abusefilter(editfilter) permissions. Mainly, I'd like to help in the debugging, creation, implementation, '''documentation'''(which is sorely lacking) and optimization of filters. There doesn't appear to be any set criteria for being granted abusefilter permissions(though its mostly admins), but I believe I qualify. I'm willing to answer questions regarding proper syntax and whatnot.[[User:Smallman12q|Smallman12q]] ([[User talk:Smallman12q|talk]]) 14:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC) :Edit Filter Manager is becoming quite popular. [[User:Ruslik0|Ruslik]]_[[User Talk:Ruslik0|<span style="color:red">Zero</span>]] 19:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC) I shall be [[WP:BOLD]] and ask a question. If this process seems successful, we might be able to systematize it. The following is an example filter that checks for the words "ass" or "asshole." Correct any errors and optimize it. (Note: You do not have to check for donkey-related false positives.) <source lang="cpp"> (added_lines rlike "asshole?") & !(autoconfirmed in user_groups) & !(removed_lines rlike "asshole?") & (article_namespace == 0) </source> Cheers, [[User:King of Hearts|King of]] [[User:King of Hearts|<font color="red">&hearts;</font>]] [[User talk:King of Hearts|<font color="red">&diams;</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/King of Hearts|<font color="black">&clubs;</font>]] &spades; 20:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC) ---- :Certainly: <source lang="javascript"> (article_namespace == 0) & !("autoconfirmed" in user_groups) & (action == "edit") & (lcase(added_lines) rlike "ass(hole?)" & !(lcase(removed_lines) rlike "ass(hole?)" </source> Or for checking to make sure there's no donkey/ass in the title text/before (this one isn't too good) <source lang="javascript"> (article_namespace == 0) & !("autoconfirmed" in user_groups) & (action == "edit") & !(lcase(article_text) rlike "(donkey|ass|anal|butt)") & !(lcase(old_wikitext) rlike "(ass(hole?)|butt)") & (lcase(added_lines) rlike "ass(hole?)") & !(lcase(removed_lines) rlike "ass(hole?)") </source> I've based it on [[Special:AbuseFilter/11]], [[Special:AbuseFilter/39]], [[Special:AbuseFilter/46]]. I hope it works as I don't have access to the debugging tools=P. [[User:Smallman12q|Smallman12q]] ([[User talk:Smallman12q|talk]]) 21:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC) :Unfortunately, it seems that you have made two regex errors in <code>asshole?</code>. What this will check for is <code>asshol</code> or <code>asshole</code>. The correct regex is <code>ass(hole)?\b</code>. The parentheses serve the purpose of grouping, while the <code>\b</code> serves the purpose of ending the word. (Otherwise, assist, asset, etc. would get flagged. <code>\b</code> literally means "any non-word character.") I would suggest that you take a look at this [http://www.regular-expressions.info/reference.html handy reference]. -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]] [[User:King of Hearts|<font color="red">&hearts;</font>]] [[User talk:King of Hearts|<font color="red">&diams;</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/King of Hearts|<font color="black">&clubs;</font>]] &spades; 22:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC) ::=(.You are correct. Well I read up on regex and came up with this <code>a[s$][s$](h[o0][l1]e?|)\b</code>. It catches ass pretty well=P. When I ran it through regextester however, it catches a$$hat and a$shat, but not asshat? Well, I did fail your first test, but I still hope you will see my willingness to learn and assist as the determining factor.[[User:Smallman12q|Smallman12q]] ([[User talk:Smallman12q|talk]]) 00:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC) :::Don't worry. Regex isn't hard. :-) [[User:King of Hearts|King of]] [[User:King of Hearts|<font color="red">&hearts;</font>]] [[User talk:King of Hearts|<font color="red">&diams;</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/King of Hearts|<font color="black">&clubs;</font>]] &spades; 00:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC) '''Question 2.''' Check for the following: <source lang="email"> Brian is a bold text. Brian is a headline text. Brianna is a bold text. Brianna is a headline text. </source> Do a <s>[[Special:AbuseFilter/test|batch test]]</s> on my contribs, with "Show changes that do not match the filter" enabled. You should see the ones with edit summary "Smallman12q #[1-4]" positive and "Smallman12q #[5-8]" negative. -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]] [[User:King of Hearts|<font color="red">&hearts;</font>]] [[User talk:King of Hearts|<font color="red">&diams;</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/King of Hearts|<font color="black">&clubs;</font>]] &spades; 17:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC) (My name is ''not'' Brian btw.) -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]] [[User:King of Hearts|<font color="red">&hearts;</font>]] [[User talk:King of Hearts|<font color="red">&diams;</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/King of Hearts|<font color="black">&clubs;</font>]] &spades; 17:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC) For this exercise, you will not need autoconfirmed, namespace, etc. stuff, just the regex. Just a comment (for reference): For the other stuff, <code>(action == "edit")</code> is unnecessary, since pretty much all !autoconfirmed changes are edits. -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]] [[User:King of Hearts|<font color="red">&hearts;</font>]] [[User talk:King of Hearts|<font color="red">&diams;</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/King of Hearts|<font color="black">&clubs;</font>]] &spades; 17:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC) I forgot you can't do a batch test without the permission. I guess you'll need to do it manually: http://regexpal.com. -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]] [[User:King of Hearts|<font color="red">&hearts;</font>]] [[User talk:King of Hearts|<font color="red">&diams;</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/King of Hearts|<font color="black">&clubs;</font>]] &spades; 18:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC) :Well I found the page history at [[User:King_of_Hearts/Sandbox/AbuseFilter]]. I'm a bit confused as to what you want me to check for though? Is this it: <code>Brian(na|) is a (bold|headline) text.\b</code>(I don't think the \b is needed at the end).[[User:Smallman12q|Smallman12q]] ([[User talk:Smallman12q|talk]]) 22:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC) ::See my talk page for a problem. Yes \b is unnecessary, as no one would append a character immediately after a period. (Even if they did, so what?) -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]] [[User:King of Hearts|<font color="red">&hearts;</font>]] [[User talk:King of Hearts|<font color="red">&diams;</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/King of Hearts|<font color="black">&clubs;</font>]] &spades; 22:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC) :::<nowiki>*cough*</nowiki>. You are both wrong. .(Period) isn't a literal period. .(Period) matches any single character. So text.\b would match "texta ", "text1 ", etc. [[User:Prodego|<font color="darkgreen">''Prodego''</font>]] ^{[[User talk:Prodego|<font color="darkgreen">talk</font>]]} 22:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC) ::::<nowiki>*cough cough*</nowiki>. Prodego, you're also wrong. When I say "see my talk page," that's what I mean. (Wrong as in, not the regex, but the evaluation of the problem.) -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]] [[User:King of Hearts|<font color="red">&hearts;</font>]] [[User talk:King of Hearts|<font color="red">&diams;</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/King of Hearts|<font color="black">&clubs;</font>]] &spades; 23:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC) :::::<nowiki>*hack wheeze*</nowiki> Read the problem! Nonsense! That sounds like work! <tt>:)</tt> (I was basing my comment on "\b is unnecessary, as no one would append a character immediately after a period.") [[User:Prodego|<font color="darkgreen">''Prodego''</font>]] ^{[[User talk:Prodego|<font color="darkgreen">talk</font>]]} 03:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC) ::::::SpecialFilter#414 - IF count_cases(cold symptoms) > 2 DISTRIBUTE COUGH DROPS. -- [[User:Avraham|Avi]] ([[User talk:Avraham|talk]]) 03:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC) So...when I find out whether I qualify or not...?<!-- I hope I'm not rushing it. -->[[User:Smallman12q|Smallman12q]] ([[User talk:Smallman12q|talk]]) 20:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC) :Shouldn't we wait and see the outcome of the Village Pump topic you opened? Regards, <font color="green">[[User:MacMed|'''MacMed''']]</font>^{<font color="red">[[User talk:MacMed|talk]]</font>}_{<font color="black">[[Special:Contributions/MacMed|stalk]]</font>} 21:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC) ::Sure, why not. Hopefully there will be more discussion(perhaps it should be added to centralized discussion). I didn't mean to rush, I was simply hoping to elicit a response=D. [[User:Smallman12q|Smallman12q]] ([[User talk:Smallman12q|talk]]) 21:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC) :Hello Smallman12q. I hope you don't mind if I butt in with a comment, well perhaps a question or suggestion, while we're waiting for comment on process. It applies equally to other applications for permissions on this page. Personally I find that Roux has hit the nail squarely on the head in the aforementioned other discussion.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)&diff=307244859&oldid=307244298] The village pump can be slow sometimes, but I wonder if there's a lack of further comment because the initial response was so blindingly obvious. What I would like to see is a bigger case being made for why it would be an advantage to grant this right. Many of the things you mention don't require permissions, and I would expect some proven experience in them before applying for the right. Cobi for example (now a sysop) has bots with millions of edits and a high level of trust. The other non-sysop with the permission that I know of has specialist knowledge of a particular sockpuppeteer targeted by a filter, as evidenced by active support from a number of admins. I just haven't seen it from anyone else yet. There seems to me to be plenty of sysops around to edit the filters. You must accept there is some risk to granting this right to someone who hasn't been through the same scrutiny as a sysop. Where is the advantage to balance this risk? -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] ^{[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]} 23:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC) ::I appreciate your remark: I always prefer discussion to silence=D. I do agree with Roux; abusefilter (and sysop tools) require a high level of trust by the general wikipedian community. An abusefilter, like sysop tools could be seriously misused if in the wrong hands (essentially blocking all edits). While documentation(which I have started) does not require permission, optimization and the creation of new filters does. ::There isn't a set criteria; hence the thread at the village pump. As for advantage, that's where the wikipedia community comes in. As with an RFA, a consensus should be reached to determine whether granting such permissions is worth the risk(that's how I see it). The rationale behind that conensus should be held to some kind of standards...as yet to be determined.[[User:Smallman12q|Smallman12q]] ([[User talk:Smallman12q|talk]]) 00:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC) == Hidding the log == For some filters such as [[Special:AbuseFilter/76]] and [[Special:AbuseFilter/211]], the logs should be hidden, otherwise the filter makes it easier for bots. (The logs of private filters are not hidden). By hidden, I mean that you require abusefilter/sysop privileges to see them. Perhaps an enhancement bug should be filed?[[User:Smallman12q|Smallman12q]] ([[User talk:Smallman12q|talk]]) 15:20, 9 August 2009 (UTC) :I don't see why we should remove the ability for anyone to view the history of public filters. [[User:FunPika|<span style="color:blue"><b>Fun</b></span>]][[User_Talk:FunPika|<span style="color:green"><b>Pika</b></span>]] 16:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC) ::Well, in some case, the filters are being used to prevent people from adding personal info such as emails. By allowing the log to be public, these peoples' emails are still being posted...defeating the purpose of the filter.[[User:Smallman12q|Smallman12q]] ([[User talk:Smallman12q|talk]]) 21:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC) :That does make sense; the logs provide easy prey for spammers. -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]] [[User:King of Hearts|<font color="red">&hearts;</font>]] [[User talk:King of Hearts|<font color="red">&diams;</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/King of Hearts|<font color="black">&clubs;</font>]] &spades; 17:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC) :: Do you have specific evidence? [[User:Ruslik0|Ruslik]]_[[User Talk:Ruslik0|<span style="color:red">Zero</span>]] 19:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC) :::Evidence? Please elaborate.[[User:Smallman12q|Smallman12q]] ([[User talk:Smallman12q|talk]]) 21:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC) :I think there was a suggest earlier about hiding the logs from public view after ''x'' number of days for [[WP:BEANS|a number of reasons]]... Spambots harvesting the email addresses viewable in examine would certainly qualify as a reason. The ability to restrict log display to a limited usergroup right away on certain filters also has value, as with the above example. –<font face="verdana" color="black">[[user:xeno|'''xeno''']]</font>[[user talk:xeno|<font color="black" face="verdana">^talk</font>]] 22:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC) It is my opinion that the community interest in overseeing filter performance (false positive rate and so on) outweighs any benefits that hiding the log might give. &mdash; [[User:Werdna|<span style="font-weight: bold; color: #404080">Werdna</span>]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[User talk:Werdna|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]] 09:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC) ::This isn't for filter performance, this is for privacy. Not hiding the log in some cases makes the filter completely ineffective;even harmful eg: a filter was designed to detect and prevent emails from being posted, but since a log is kept, those emails can be easily harvested by a spam bot.[[User:Smallman12q|Smallman12q]] ([[User talk:Smallman12q|talk]]) 15:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC) :::But we all know perfectly well that you would all go and hide every private filter log from public view anyway, and then the rest of us would be ''completely'' screwed, as we wouldn't be able to go through the logs and find which edits were prevented for no good reason and try to guess why based on their content, so you lot would pretty much have free rein to prevent anything you like without any sort of accountability. No thanks. [[User:Gurch|Gurch]] ([[User talk:Gurch|talk]]) 23:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC) :Could the log have a bit that oversight could set, so that the item is not shown in the log (the edit would still test positive in the testing facility, but well). It would not remove the item from the log, and could still be 'shown' as 'oversighted item'. That makes it possible to count it in the false positive rate (like a neutral vote in a vote). --[[User:Beetstra|Dirk Beetstra]] ^{[[User_Talk:Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">T</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">C</span>]]} 10:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC) == EF Managers Permission == I've done some work with regex, and I also have some experience with programming languages like JavaScript (advanced beginner). I feel that I would be able to contribute positively to the Edit Filter, and I would discuss any major changes or questions I had on talk before enacting said changes. I am also open to any questions or "testing" to evaluate my candidacy/competence. Regards, <font color="green">[[User:MacMed|'''MacMed''']]</font>^{<font color="red">[[User talk:MacMed|talk]]</font>}_{<font color="black">[[Special:Contributions/MacMed|stalk]]</font>} 18:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC) :'''Q:''' According to your userpage, you've been on Wikipedia for just shy of 3 months. EFM is a powerful permission that requires both technical knowledge and a refined understanding of Wikipedia's editing policies. Can you explain why you feel you meet both these requirements? –<font face="verdana" color="black">[[user:xeno|'''xeno''']]</font>[[user talk:xeno|<font color="black" face="verdana">^talk</font>]] 18:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC) ::'''A:''' I feel that I have the technical knowledge from dealing with some programming situations as well as working with Wikipedia regex in the past. Again, I am willing to answer/solve any examples or problems you may wish to present me with. As for the editing policies, I don't know if there is a way to prove that to you, but I shall try. Personally, I believe that a Wikipedian should be judged on the maturity and usefulness of their edits, rather than their wiki-age. I have made mistakes in the past, but once I was informed of the mistake I did not perform that same mistake again. Some of our current policies are, to me, self-explanatory and common sense (ie. [[WP:NPA]], [[WP:AGF]], [[WP:BITE]], etc.). Others, like the [[WP:N|notability policy]] and [[WP:ATHLETE|it's]] [[WP:CORP|various]] [[WP:N/CA|subpolicies]] are more complex, but can be understood and taken to heart. I am not just dropping numerous links here, I can define and give you a description of each policy if you wish. Finally, as I said above, any questions I have, or actions I am unsure about, will be discussed either here or on the relevant notice/discussion board before the action is taken. Regards, <font color="green">[[User:MacMed|'''MacMed''']]</font>^{<font color="red">[[User talk:MacMed|talk]]</font>}_{<font color="black">[[Special:Contributions/MacMed|stalk]]</font>} 18:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC) :::Thanks. I must admit, in general I am apprehensive giving this right out to folks with such a short history. –<font face="verdana" color="black">[[user:xeno|'''xeno''']]</font>[[user talk:xeno|<font color="black" face="verdana">^talk</font>]] 18:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC) :'''Q:''' Could you come up with a net-new filter that you might work on were this request successful? You may describe it and/or show the code. –<font face="verdana" color="black">[[user:xeno|'''xeno''']]</font>[[user talk:xeno|<font color="black" face="verdana">^talk</font>]] 18:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC) ::'''A:''' The first thing I would probably do is continue to help out [[User:Otterathome]] with the Uncyclopedia vandalism he seems to be experiencing. That coding is simple. Another idea I have is to help out with the seemingly common problem at [[WP:WPBIO|WikiProject Biographies]], which is the creation of biographic articles, which are then tagged with the {{tl|WPBiography}} template, without the |listas= parameter. The code could get a little complicated, but I think I could handle it. A start could be: <pre> (article_namespace = 1) & (lcase(added_lines) rlike "{{(WPBiography|BIO|WPBIO)") & !(lcase(added_lines) contain "|listas") </pre> Not sure if there is already a filter for that, but it's an idea. The filter would log and warn, with a warning template with something like "You recently tagged an article with a WikiProject Biography tag, but did not include a |listas= parameter. When you can, please return to the article and include the parameter. Thank you." I would also keep an eye on requested filters, and any requests I receive personally, while helping with team collaboration when necessary. Regards, <font color="green">[[User:MacMed|'''MacMed''']]</font>^{<font color="red">[[User talk:MacMed|talk]]</font>}_{<font color="black">[[Special:Contributions/MacMed|stalk]]</font>} 19:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC) :Would you care to comment at [[Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Criteria_for_Abusefilter.2Feditfilter_permissions]] for helping devolp criteria for granting nonadmins permissions?[[User:Smallman12q|Smallman12q]] ([[User talk:Smallman12q|talk]]) 21:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC) : It baffles me why anyone would consider failing to add a parameter to a maintenance template to be abuse. [[User:Gurch|Gurch]] ([[User talk:Gurch|talk]]) 23:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC) ::That's why the name was changed to "edit filter" :). This would not disallow the edit, nor would the warning template be derogatory or accusative. It would just say "We noticed that you forgot to add this parameter. If you could, would you mind adding it? Thanks," It wouldn't disallow the edit or look negative on the editor. Just a simple reminder. Regards, <font color="green">[[User:MacMed|'''MacMed''']]</font>^{<font color="red">[[User talk:MacMed|talk]]</font>}_{<font color="black">[[Special:Contributions/MacMed|stalk]]</font>} 00:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC) :::Changing the name of something doesn't change its effect, nor the fact that it is being misused outside of its designed purpose. [[User:Gurch|Gurch]] ([[User talk:Gurch|talk]]) 21:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC) == RFC in devolping criteria == Rfc for devolping criteria for granting permissions at [[Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Criteria_for_Abusefilter.2Feditfilter_permissions]].[[User:Smallman12q|Smallman12q]] ([[User talk:Smallman12q|talk]]) 21:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC) == Removing copyright tags == [[User:Who then was a gentleman?|Who then was a gentleman?]] asked [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=307518121#Copyright_work.3F at a recent AN thread] whether there was an abuse filter to note removal of copyvio tags. So far as I know, there isn't, and it seems like this could be very useful, as the premature removal of these sometimes restores copyrighted text to publication. I've had nothing to do with edit filters and so am unsure of their capabilities (looks complex :)). Ideally, it should flag for human review, since articles tagged with {{tl|copyvio}} aren't reviewed for seven + one days after tagging. These tags are supposed to be removed only by administrators; however, there are many cases where I've seen that non-admins have reviewed and appropriately removed the tags where they were unwarranted. OTOH, most of the time they're removed improperly. There's probably not much call for them to be removed by new accounts or unregistered users, given the high incidence of abuse. Is this something an edit filter could help with? Does anybody have any input on what such a filter might do? --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] ^{[[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]]} 12:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC) :{{done}} - [[Special:AbuseFilter/224]]. It checks for non-autoconfirmed users in the main namespace making edits such that the number of copyvio tags in the new revision is less than the number of copyvio tags in the old revision. -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]] [[User:King of Hearts|<font color="red">&hearts;</font>]] [[User talk:King of Hearts|<font color="red">&diams;</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/King of Hearts|<font color="black">&clubs;</font>]] &spades; 21:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC) ::Thank you very much. :) --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] ^{[[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]]} 11:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC) == Createaccount not working == I was able to successfully create {{user|Aaron Black third test}} past filter 225, and {{user|KoH Guy test}} without getting logged by 159. Looks like the createaccount check is not working somehow? -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]] [[User:King of Hearts|<font color="red">&hearts;</font>]] [[User talk:King of Hearts|<font color="red">&diams;</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/King of Hearts|<font color="black">&clubs;</font>]] &spades; 21:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC) :225 is missing parenthesis and 159's regex wouldn't match "KoH Guy test", so the behavior is expected. (I'd be happy to elaborate if you would like, by the way) [[User:Prodego|<font color="darkgreen">''Prodego''</font>]] ^{[[User talk:Prodego|<font color="darkgreen">talk</font>]]} 22:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC) == Disabling/Removing [[Special:AbuseFilter/1|Filter 1]] == This seems to be a little ridiculous. The only thing it does is flag a revision in the edit log. If I am not mistaken, this was meant to only be a test. [[User:Barista Girl|Barista Girl]] ([[User talk:Barista Girl|talk]]) 02:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC) :You might want to ask {{user|Prodego}} about it. –<font face="verdana" color="black">[[user:xeno|'''xeno''']]</font>[[user talk:xeno|<font color="black" face="verdana">^talk</font>]] 16:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC) ::Arbcom asked me for it. There are several filters that only log. [[User:Prodego|<font color="darkgreen">''Prodego''</font>]] ^{[[User talk:Prodego|<font color="darkgreen">talk</font>]]} 16:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC) :Sometimes it is important to know how often something happens, and these kinds of filters are excellent for that. And yes, ArbCom did ask Prodego for that. -- [[User:Avraham|Avi]] ([[User talk:Avraham|talk]]) 16:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC) ::Why is it called "Misc test filter", then? --[[User:Conti|Conti]]|[[User talk:Conti|✉]] 17:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC) ::Because it started out as a test filter for the Edit filters (note, it is #1) and now has been used for various purposes by customizing the code. There is no reason to change the name, and for short-term filters, why create a new one that will have to be deleted in a matter of weeks when a customizable one exists? -- [[User:Avraham|Avi]] ([[User talk:Avraham|talk]]) 17:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC) :::Well, my understanding of a "test filter" was that it was used to test something for a few minutes or hours or maybe days, but not ''weeks''. If it weren't for this thread, I would've assumed that the filter has long since served its purpose and can be changed/disabled by anyone who needs it again. --[[User:Conti|Conti]]|[[User talk:Conti|✉]] 17:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC) ::Well, it is in use now; when ArbCom/Prodego are done with it, I guess it can be disabled until another need pops up. -- [[User:Avraham|Avi]] ([[User talk:Avraham|talk]]) 17:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC) *I'm curious why Arbcom wants to track people saying fuck or cunt outside articlespace... Is there a link to the request somewhere? –<font face="verdana" color="black">[[user:xeno|'''xeno''']]</font>[[user talk:xeno|<font color="black" face="verdana">^talk</font>]] 17:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC) I saw the request on func-l (and actually started building a filter for it) and can confirm it. As for why, you will have to e-mail func-l or arbcom-l and ask for that information. As a non-Arbcom member I don't think it is my place to explain it; let ArbCom decide if they want to. -- [[User:Avraham|Avi]] ([[User talk:Avraham|talk]]) 17:34, 14 August 2009 (UTC) :I've written them and suggested a public statement be made about this filter. Note it's fairly expensive as well. –<font face="verdana" color="black">[[user:xeno|'''xeno''']]</font>[[user talk:xeno|<font color="black" face="verdana">^talk</font>]] 17:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC) *After some drama over whether or not "established users" should be sanctioned for swearing at other editors, I thought it would be useful to gather some actual facts on how often users swear at each other in anger, and what the outcomes are. I chose the word "fuck" as a proxy for user incivility, fully knowing that it was an incomplete proxy, and an arbitrator asked to add the word "cunt." Jimbo heartily endorsed the research project to gather this information, if that means anything. The filter captures the use of the word "fuck" and "cunt" (as well as derivatives, compounds, etc) when used by editors with more than 500 edits (to screen out simple vandalism). I examine the log periodically and find cases where editors are using the word against other editors in anger (ignoring milder uses such as "Who gives a fuck") and tracking the response, if any. My research is at [[User:Thatcher/Sandbox4]]. I planned to collect 50 or 100 events, to have a good sample, but uses of the words in anger are less frequent than I might have imagined, so I will probably stop after 30 days. [[User talk:Thatcher|Thatcher]] 18:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC) *:Thanks for the explanation. Respectfully, I don't think the Edit filter should be tasked on this. It will only increase the pre-existing apprehension towards it. Can't this type of data-gathering be done with the database dumps, or searches? –<font face="verdana" color="black">[[user:xeno|'''xeno''']]</font>[[user talk:xeno|<font color="black" face="verdana">^talk</font>]] 18:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC) :::I don't know. [[User talk:Thatcher|Thatcher]] 19:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC) :::As far as "apprehension" is concerned, the signal to noise ratio is so low that this should actually convince people that using the edit filter to enforce civility is not terribly practical. [[User talk:Thatcher|Thatcher]] 19:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC) ::::It could be improved a bit, but civility is ultimately something that depends on context, and can not automatically be identified. The filter is named 'Misc test filter' because I use it for miscellaneous tests. It is expensive in terms of run time, not terribly so in terms of conditions. However, the users who are affected by the run time on this filter are really not being affected by any others, so it balances out and isn't a huge problem. [[User:Prodego|<font color="darkgreen">''Prodego''</font>]] ^{[[User talk:Prodego|<font color="darkgreen">talk</font>]]} 21:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC) ::I'll echo Thatcher's words above; the purpose of the data collection was simply to see how often the terms were used, and how often they were used in a clearly uncivil way. And it wasn't an "official" Arbcom or Functionaries request, although obviously both groups have a very strong interest in this area, and we talked about it. Having looked at a sample of the posts caught by the edit filter, I might have added a few more to the list than did Thatcher (although mostly because the posts appeared to me to be uncivil ''in toto'',even if the use of "f***" or "c***" or their derivatives weren't specifically uncivil); however, most of the time the terms were being used conversationally, except for the debate about the DYK of yesterday. I suspect that says something too, but not necessarily about civility. I also agree with both Thatcher and Prodego that this experiment has also shown that it isn't words themselves that are uncivil, it is the context in which they are used that determines incivility. I can't imagine an edit filter being helpful in enforcing civility - but now we have the evidence to show that. [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 05:26, 15 August 2009 (UTC) Constitutionally, it's unclear whether ArbCom has the authority to set up a filter. But the edit filter was really not designed for this kind of things, and this one is extremity expensive. There are other, more efficient, ways to gather this data (e.g. bots). Unless ArbCom makes a formal statement that this edit filter should not be disabled (and it's constitutionally unclear whether they can), this is up to the usual consensus to decide. For my part, I believe this is way too expensive for such a low-priority data-gathering task. [[User:Cenarium|Cenarium]] ([[User talk:Cenarium|talk]]) 16:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC) :Creating the filter was something I did, not arbcom. Arbcom (or more correctly, the functionaries) may have asked for it, but ultimately I am the one who is responsible for that filter. This one ''seems'' to be very expensive. However, the users it is expensive for are affected by almost no other filters, so the actual load is still far under what I would consider acceptable. [[User:Prodego|<font color="darkgreen">''Prodego''</font>]] ^{[[User talk:Prodego|<font color="darkgreen">talk</font>]]} 22:04, 15 August 2009 (UTC) : ArbCom, you are a pain at the best of times, if you want statistics can you not get them in the way as the rest of us have to rather than using your "power" to demand abuse filters? Oh and BTW "fuck cunt" ~~~~ == [[Special:AbuseFilter/103]] not working == [[Special:AbuseFilter/103]] doesn't appear to be working properly. I tested it on new accounts twice[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Placodiscus_caudatus&diff=prev&oldid=307985019][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Placodiscus_caudatus&diff=307985349&oldid=307985131] on {{la|Placodiscus caudatus}}. This filter hasn't picked up any false positives so far so should still be enabled.--[[User:Otterathome|Otterathome]] ([[User talk:Otterathome|talk]]) 18:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC) :Those don't match the filter criteria. –<font face="verdana" color="black">[[user:xeno|'''xeno''']]</font>[[user talk:xeno|<font color="black" face="verdana">^talk</font>]] 18:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC) :Unless I'm misreading it, it is not testing for the "word" uncyclopedia, but for LINKS to uncyclopedia, so your edits would not have tripped it. -- [[User:Avraham|Avi]] ([[User talk:Avraham|talk]]) 18:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC) ::Well it's suppose to filter it in any format.--[[User:Otterathome|Otterathome]] ([[User talk:Otterathome|talk]]) 19:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC) :::This filter is more specific than you seem to think. –<font face="verdana" color="black">[[user:xeno|'''xeno''']]</font>[[user talk:xeno|<font color="black" face="verdana">^talk</font>]] 19:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC) ::::It's private now so I can't see it, could you make the changes so it detects it in any format then? Thanks.--[[User:Otterathome|Otterathome]] ([[User talk:Otterathome|talk]]) 19:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC) :::::You want it to detect the word 'uncyclopedia' anywhere? Seems like the potential for false positives is too high. –<font face="verdana" color="black">[[user:xeno|'''xeno''']]</font>[[user talk:xeno|<font color="black" face="verdana">^talk</font>]] 19:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC) I set the filter public, no need for it to be private. Personally I disagree with this filter existing at all. [[User:Prodego|<font color="darkgreen">''Prodego''</font>]] ^{[[User talk:Prodego|<font color="darkgreen">talk</font>]]} 21:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC) :It seems you edit filter is not as effective anymore due to all the tweaking. If Oscar Wild ''and'' <nowiki>http://uncyclopedia</nowiki> both need to be detected at the same time then it will miss out a lot of spam as shown in the filter log. Prodego you've been against this filter from the start, it has filtered over 200 cases of vandalism without any false positives, so I don't understand why you are against it.--[[User:Otterathome|Otterathome]] ([[User talk:Otterathome|talk]]) 10:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)'