Wikipedia:Edit filter noticeboard

"WP:EFN" redirects here. For information on the {{efn}} template, see WP:EXPLNOTE.

Welcome to the edit filter noticeboard

WATCH Recent filter changes (): Filter 614 — Pattern modified Last changed at 05:46, 30 November 2024 (UTC) Filter 782 — Pattern modified Last changed at 00:08, 29 November 2024 (UTC) Filter 833 — Pattern modified Last changed at 00:08, 29 November 2024 (UTC) Filter 1330 (new) — Actions: none; Flags: private; Pattern modified Last changed at 18:55, 28 November 2024 (UTC) Filter 1329 (new) — Actions: showcaptcha; Flags: enabled,private; Pattern modified Last changed at 17:56, 27 November 2024 (UTC) Filter 484 (restored) — Actions: <span style='color:red; Flags: enabled; Pattern modified Last changed at 01:03, 27 November 2024 (UTC) Filter 1328 (new) — Actions: none; Flags: enabled,private; Pattern modified Last changed at 09:02, 25 November 2024 (UTC) This is the edit filter noticeboard, for coordination and discussion of edit filter use and management. If you wish to request an edit filter, please post at Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested. If you would like to report a false positive, please post at Wikipedia:Edit filter/False positives. Private filters should not be discussed in detail here; please email an edit filter manager if you have specific concerns or questions about the content of hidden filters. There are currently 333 enabled filters and 48 stale filters with no hits in the past 30 days. Filter condition use is ~1063, out of a maximum of 2000. (). See also the profiling data and edit filter graphs. Click here to start a new discussion thread

Protected filters

It seems we can now add the 'Protected' flag to a filter, which seems to irreversibly activate abusefilter-access-protected-vars for that filter. Apparently using user_unnamed_ip in a filter automatically protects the filter (part of the temporary accounts thing), but this flag can also be set manually. As I understand it, with our current rights setup, this prevents the filter from being viewed by (local) EFH and EFMs. Some of this seems a bit iffy to me, but in particular I'm sure we don't have a policy about any of it. Am I missing something? Do we have any thoughts? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:23, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

A few days ago, Ohnoitsjamie protected 1165 (hist · log), but 1033 (hist · log) would also be a good candidate for protection. We could add information about protected filters) to the edit filter project page regarding this. I believe this might require consensus on the mailing list or somewhere to mark a filter as protected. Codename Noreste 🤔 Talk 23:08, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Weird - I did not intend to protect that (wasn't even aware that was a thing), must have been an accidental click. It's odd that it can't be undone. My intention is that all of my filters should be accessible and viewable by edit filter helpers and managers, but hidden otherwise, as they mostly target LTAs who are always looking for ways around them. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:28, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Ohnoitsjamie, I've sent you another email, with more reasons that should never be discussed on public. Codename Noreste 🤔 Talk 23:36, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

These filters are already private. You are saying, with our current rights, that we should disallow local EFM and EFH from viewing these filters and their logs? Actually I'd disagree. But it's weird that global AFH have this right, but not local groups. If we give this right to local groups then I don't see any benefit to protecting a filter (other than the benefit of irreversibility). Also, I'm not on the mailing list (and don't have a good opinion of off-wiki consensus). -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:25, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I didn't say we should not allow non-administrator EFMs and EFHs to view/edit protected filters. They can, but they might want to sign the confidentiality agreement for personal information first. Codename Noreste 🤔 Talk 23:37, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

The current effect is that they won't be able to view the filters or their logs. Moreover, as I understand it signing an NDA does not grant this right. I doubt global AFH have to sign an NDA, yet they have this right, and for the record I have signed an NDA but only the checkuser version and nothing related to temporary accounts (though whether I'm relevant is debatable). -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:47, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I brought it up at T369610#10233370 last month to Tran (WMF), since I assumed there would be some inpact for us even before temporary accounts came to enwiki. I believe it should be possible to determine per local consesus to give access to EFM and EFH before temporary accounts come are enabled here Nobody (talk) 07:18, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't seem there's been any discussion about 'abusefilter-access-protected-vars' before on enwiki[1] (about who should have the right anyways).

The documentation also says that the logs generated by a protected filter are only visible to people with a different right (abusefilter-protected-vars-log, mw:diff, added 4 days ago) which, if I'm to believe Special:ListGroupRights, is currently only given by default to checkusers (not even admins)? Is this correct? (*edit: if the phab is correct, this is not what this right is) – 2804:F1...37:F619 (::/32) (talk) 23:38, 8 November 2024 (UTC) *edited 00:19, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Only administrators of this project have this right. As for the CheckUser thing, I am not sure. Codename Noreste 🤔 Talk 23:39, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I think you're right. So let's compare EFH, Global AFH, some random non-EFM admin, EFM admin, and me, checkuser. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:00, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

I did some searching and I think the current 'default' state of things is coming from this phab: T369610.

Seems mostly to be adjusting for Legal's decisions. – 2804:F1...37:F619 (::/32) (talk) 00:02, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Apologies, per phab:T369610#10240941, by the same person who wrote the documentation in my diff, 'abusefilter-protected-vars-log' is not a right that allows people to view the logs generated by protected abusefilters, but instead a right that gates access to the audit/usage logs of when someone views information around protected variables - the same right that lets people edit protected filters let them view the filter logs.

Basically, pretty much irrelevant to working with protected filters themselves - if it's just some meta-logs. – 2804:F1...37:F619 (::/32) (talk) 00:18, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Well to begin with filters shouldn't be applied irreversible protections as was done to Special:AbuseFilter/1165, especially since it was needless as it does not make use of user_unnamed_ip. This is a temporary accounts-related privacy change. Filters that most likely do need protection (and migration) include Special:AbuseFilter/847, for instance. I'm still not quite sure what abusefilter-protected-vars-log does though. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 00:40, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

If I finally understood, that just lets checkusers see logs like these(phab, gerrit), but specific to viewing protected filter logs/vars.

The documentation is just confusing. – 2804:F1...37:F619 (::/32) (talk) 00:50, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

As I understand it, migration (when it happens) should automatically trigger the protection and it won't need adding manually. So the documentation is inconsistent, and the rights will probably be changing at some point. At this time I maintain that protecting a filter prevents any access from EFHs and EFMs. Whether this will be true in the future is unknown, but in any case there seems to me to be dubious benefits to manually adding protection. Either people viewing private filters are going to be allowed protected access, or we choose to deny their access through protection based on other aritrary criteria. I'd suggest we just don't allow it to be manually added (through policy and signposting) at this time. Or at least agree that we don't encourage it. We might need to have further discussions at some point about adding user_unnamed_ip around migration time, since it will apply that irreversible protection. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 01:00, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

We could always get ahead of the game, technically, and form a consensus to add abusefilter-access-protected-vars to EFH and EFM. Everyone in those groups (with the exception of SPI clerks) is in there by some form of consensus, so I doubt the WMF would object given I don't see anyone with less than 6 months tenure and 300 edits (the criteria for access to temporary account IPs) being an EFH, much less an EFM. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 02:50, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Only commenting on the last part of what you said, note that some bots have EFH and EFM, but may not meet those specific criteria. For example, ProcBot II has EFM and does not have 300 edits. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 03:33, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Fair, though its operator meets the criteria, and I imagine the bot would just be judged by the operator's eligibility. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 04:21, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

So realistically I'm thinking we shouldn't be protecting any filters at all unless the software blocks saving a filter absent a protection. With not every EFH and EFM being necessarily able to access protected filters, we shouldn't be using the toggle, given it's basically just a glorified and irreversible action of setting a filter private, but named differently. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 02:50, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: There's phab:T377765 and phab:T378553 about warning/preventing irreversible protections if no PII variables like user_unnamed_ip are used. Johannnes89 (talk) 09:18, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I'll also recommend this feature to be temporarily enabled on all projects (except projects that will get Temporary accounts...soon). This is to avoid confusion, and allowing the feature to be piloted without affecting other projects. Task is phab:T379503. Protected variables are not needed except for dealing with Temporary accounts. Best, Martin Urbanec (talk) 20:19, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Given the confusion, it would probably be a good idea to allow some select group, e.g stewards, to mark a filter "un-protected". Otherwise we're one fat finger away from disappearing the whole log of 384 (hist · log). Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:11, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

If the solution at T377765 is implemented to make it impossible to protect a filter unless it uses protected variables is implemented, the fat-fingering problem will be resolved. If not, yeah, there probably should be a right added to the steward group like abusefilter-unprotect to remove that protection. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 23:58, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Related: phab:T378551. There are like 5 open tasks related to this specific issue <shrugs>. XXBlackburnXx (talk) 10:44, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

FTR: I've talked to the Trust and Safety Product team (that is responsible for this feature) and we went through the tasks. The issue should be resolved within a couple of weeks at most. The feature would be temporarily disabled on projects where it is not yet needed. The checkbox should be also changed to a warning system (allowing filter managers to only protect a filter if it actually needs to be protected). Unprotection will be possible via a Phabricator task, given it is unlikely this would be ever needed again. If you have any questions, I'm happy to answer them. Martin Urbanec (talk) 23:14, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Protected variables access for EFH/EFM

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T380332
Resolved

So given this has already become a problem once, it seems like a good idea to add abusefilter-access-protected-vars to edit filter helpers and edit filter managers. I'm assuming we probably need some form of consensus to ask the devs to add it to the groups, and I'll go ahead and just bite the bullet and propose it here. Is there anywhere this should be advertised, or is EFN enough? EggRoll97 ^(talk) 23:58, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 23:58, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
• Note: this has now been advertised at the technical village pump. Codename Noreste 🤔 Talk 00:21, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
• Anyway, support access to allow non-admin EFHs and EFMs to view (and if appropriate, edit) protected edit filters. Codename Noreste 🤔 Talk 00:21, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Support per everyone else above. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 00:40, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support. This seems like the only logical option. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:13, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Support seems sensible. Galobtter (talk) 04:19, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support This makes sense. Nobody (talk) 06:12, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support. It seems obvious to me as a global AFH that anything on enwiki I can see, local EF[HM]s should also be able to see. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 08:34, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Filter 1325

• 1325 (hist · log)

I created this filter based on this version of WP:WPAIC/C to capture potentially AI-generated material. This is my first time trying to make a filter and I want to have it tag eventually. I received some syntax help from @Codename Noreste, but would like someone more experienced than me to verify that there aren't any issues. Also, how long should I wait to rename it from "test filter" and set up tagging? Thanks charlotte ^👸♥ 01:30, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

It appears that it's in your public test filter, so if there are mostly true positives, you can split it to a new filter that should have its own log. Also, new_wikitext checks for text that is already on the page (when a user makes an edit to that page), so added_lines is definitely recommended here. The filter will eventually catch false positives, so it's best for the filter not to tag any edits at all during its testing phase. Codename Noreste 🤔 Talk 01:40, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Checking added_lines without checking removed_lines is the check for some text being in the edited section (whether it existed previously or not). Think of added_lines and removed_lines as being what's shown in a diff. new_wikitext is a check of the whole page, and not just the part being edited. You could look at an example such as 345 for what I think you're probably attempting. I'd think about leaving at least a week before thinking about tagging. IMO, a broad filter like this will likely generate many false positives. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 02:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

If that is the case, I have a redesign of filter 1325 using a variable and some simplified syntax, and have somewhat simplified the regex a little bit:

stringy := "(?:(?:stand|serve)s? as|is) a testament|play(?:ed|s) a (?:vital|significant) role|it is (?:important to note|worth noting)|rich (?:cultural heritage|history)|as of my|as (?:an AI|a large) language model|I hope this helps|must-(?:visit|see)|stunning natural beauty";

equals_to_any(page_namespace, 0, 118) &
!contains_any(user_groups, "extendedconfirmed", "sysop", "bot") &
added_lines irlike stringy &
!(removed_lines irlike stringy)

Codename Noreste 🤔 Talk 02:34, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't think extendedconfirmed should be in the list of excluded user groups, as I've seen extended-confirmed users add likely AI-generated content before. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:38, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I haven't, but I'll take your word for it.  Removed charlotte ^👸♥ 19:53, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

If you want, a user right that could be more relevant to filter out is autopatrolled, as we usually trust them with content. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:26, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

What about excluding manually assigned user groups, and not just autopatrolled users? Also, are there any diffs of extended confirmed users posting AI-generated content? Codename Noreste 🤔 Talk 21:01, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

For examples of an EC user creating (multiple) AI-generated articles, this comes to mind: Wikipedia:WikiProject AI Cleanup/List of uses of ChatGPT at Wikipedia#Articles created by Coin945. Also Special:Diff/1135438246. They're much rarer than for non-EC users, so I understand the rationale for excluding them, but we can adjust it depending on the amount of false positives we get. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:21, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I might suggest using user_editcount or a similar function, since the current setup of the filter (with no usergroup exclusions) will evaluate every edit made ever to the encyclopedia's main and draft namespaces. If extended-confirmed users are part of the intended target of the filter, perhaps something like user_editcount > 2000? EggRoll97 ^(talk) 21:02, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Also, here are a few relevant articles I've read about identifying AI keywords:

• The telltale words that could identify generative AI text (Ars Technica)
• TechScape: How cheap, outsourced labour in Africa is shaping AI English (The Guardian)

Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:54, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Removal of EFH from AFHs

If you compare Edit filter helper#Criteria for revocation and Abuse filter helpers#Removal it makes sense that anyone (other than self-requested) who loses Abuse filter helper should probably also not have Edit filter helper anymore. Based on that, I think the Edit filter helper right should be removed from Abuse filter helpers. This currently would apply to four of our Edit filter helpers: Praxidicae, Fehufanga, Codename Noreste and 1997kB. Thoughts? Nobody (talk) 12:51, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Don't think this is necessary, besides the components of an external global group could be modified externally - so no need to tie these together. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:11, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Are you saying Codename Noreste had abuse filter helper revoked? Can you link to a log entry for that please? I'm not seeing it at meta:Special:GlobalUserRights/Codename_Noreste –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:17, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

No. I'm saying that anyone who has AFH removed should have EFH removed and due to that it's redundant for AFHs to also have EFH. Nobody (talk) 13:19, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Huh? Anyone who has AFH removed should have EFH removed? That seems completely ridiculous, there are many reasons why an AFH could have the group removed, but that may not be linked to their work here. Additionally, someone may wish to step down as an AFH, and if they didn't have EFH on enwiki but wished to retain it, it causes some issues IMO, and I don't see how redundancy is relevant really. Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (they/them) 17:06, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

The only reasons that someone has AFH removed are: misuse, inactivty, giving it up or getting another role that has it included. In any of these cases having EFH isn't needed and I even mentioned in the first comment other than self-requested. And wish to step down as an AFH, and if they didn't have EFH on enwiki but wished to retain it wouldn't work that way, as they'd have to go through an EFH request. Nobody (talk) 18:14, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Ah, so apparently this sentence from WP:EFH makes sense, for anyone who's wondering: Abuse filter helpers and abuse filter maintainers can view private filters on all wikis, and by extension the English Wikipedia, and hence do not need to request this right here. Codename Noreste 🤔 Talk 20:19, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes that’s my point. If you already have EFH locally, and wanted to step down from AFH but retain EFH here it wouldn’t work if you didn’t have EFH anymore. It’s a solution looking for a problem. Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (they/them) 20:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that's really necessary. Technically, the EFH group is used for access to the mailing list (I may be mistaken, but I don't think GAFHs get access to the enwiki edit filter list). Outside of that, though, EFH implies a high level of community trust. If someone has passed a consensus discussion (the overwhelming majority of EFHs here), they should be permitted to keep the local rights. We don't revoke rollback for global rollbackers, how is this any different? EggRoll97 ^(talk) 20:57, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

1178 disallowing

Similar to above, but I'm going to leave it on disallow for a bit — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 23:05, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Why is the filter set to both warn and disallow? Codename Noreste 🤔 Talk 16:26, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Probably just forgot to uncheck "warn" — either way, it's no longer disallowing — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 18:53, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

1094 is probably broken

I've notified Ohnoitsjamie, it's catching around 30% of all filters caught rn, I don't know what's happening (I'm not an EF helper). Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 19:39, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Fixed. Jamie, please ensure it works as intended now. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 19:50, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Courtesy ping @Ohnoitsjamie Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 19:52, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

It's  fixed now. Codename Noreste 🤔 Talk 00:17, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikidata changes and the edit filter

Is it known that edits at Wikidata can generate an invisible edit action here on Wikipedia, if there is an existing page associated with that data? (assumption)
For example, these are the variables generated by the Edit Filter for d:Special:Diff/2279185334. It's an edit action with an empty edit_diff - I wonder if it's ever not empty? (kinda hard to find these, they don't show up the examine list for me, just like the minor edits don't).
I guess what I'm getting at is:

• Is this intended? Is this known? (is this correct?)
  • If not, then does this affect anything?
    

Obviously I'm only asking a response from what you feel you should/can answer, if it's not known but it affects something private (unlikely) then I'm fine with just pointing it out so you can consider if it does and how. I just found this unexpected, didn't find it in the documentation (and in a basic search of noticeboards).
Edit: I'll add a description of facts, to not make things confusing with my assumptions:

• An an user edited the Wikidata item d:Q3331189 (d:Special:Diff/2279185334, Wikidata's /examine: d:Special:AbuseFilter/examine/2347391270)
  • that item is associated with Edition (book) here on Wikipedia
• This generated an /examine for an 'edit' action here on Wikipedia (Special:AbuseFilter/examine/1844633861)
  • the page shown in the /examine's page_prefixedtitle is Wikipedia:Featured articles in other languages/Russian
• This did not appear to cause any filter hits (on enwiki and on wikidata) and did not generate any visible edits (on enwiki).

– 2804:F1...E8:775A (::/32) (talk) 18:51, 24 November 2024 (UTC) *edited: 19:59, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

There 's no related data on enwiki. I don't know why there would be, but then I don't know of any invisible edit action on wikidata that generates anything here. The last filter hit for Edition (book) (on this wiki) was in March this year. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:07, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed that, the examine says the page that the edit action happened was Wikipedia:Featured articles in other languages/Russian, not even Edition (book).

Now I understand it even less. – 2804:F1...E8:775A (::/32) (talk) 19:31, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Looking at the AF source code, it looks like this might be a bug with /examine or /test. Wikidata edits shouldn't normally go through the abuse filter of other projects. XXBlackburnXx (talk) 21:15, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Another example: Special:AbuseFilter/examine/1844717211 shows an edit from Jevansen to Category:Politics and government work group articles, even though Jevansen never made any edits to that category. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ XXBlackburnXx (talk) 21:55, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

This edit seems to be the cause (the diff matches, it's the correct timestamp too)... but where did that edit summary come from?

Perhaps there really are invisible 'edit' actions, caused by other changes, one being Wikidata changes? – 2804:F1...E8:775A (::/32) (talk) 23:27, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

If you really want to figure out what's going on there you'd probably have to ask on Wikipedia:Phabricator. Nobody (talk) 06:09, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Wait, I decided to search for the edit summary of the non-visible category edit, found out it's the message MediaWiki:Recentchanges-page-added-to-category, searched for that I found out:

- These are recent changes related, they do indeed exist and are tracked here on Wikipedia!

- The non-visible category edits (that @XXBlackburnXx found) are here: Type of change: Category changes (they don't really have diffs)

- The non-visible Wikidata edits (that I found) are here: Type of change: Wikidata edits (don't have diffs either, they just link to the Wikidata diff)

These are intentional. So yeah, apparently the filter can see them, they're just perceived as edits... thinking really deeply about it, I'm pretty sure this does not have any unintended effects on any filter... well there IS a good amount of them per minute(both). – 2804:F1...F1:29EC (::/32) (talk) 21:09, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Though that makes me curious... what happens if a filter disallows/warns/captchas one of these? – 2804:F1...F1:29EC (::/32) (talk) 21:26, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Back in 2013 they wanted to have Wikidata changes show in article's histories (phab:T42358)... the idea is that a change in Wikidata (ex: changing the description of a page or adding/removing a language link, etc.) can affect the Wikipedias - this does not answer the question of what even happens if an enwiki filter disallows one. – 2804:F1...F1:29EC (::/32) (talk) 21:54, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

This is a bug in the /examine page, as I said earlier. The /examine page retrieves data from the `recentchanges` table in the database, and attempts to generate variables as accurately as possible, but it also unintentionally checks CategoryMembershipChanges and Wikidata edits. These actions are never processed by the AbuseFilter. XXBlackburnXx (talk) 23:09, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Oh, well then, sorry for misunderstanding you. I found it very interesting, but sorry for wasting people's times. – 2804:F1...1F:8749 (::/32) (talk) 23:41, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Setting 174 to disallow

Follow up from this discussion.

Are there any objections to setting 174 (hist · log) (New user removing XfD template) to disallow? This would hopefully help curb a fair amount of disruption and should have very few false positives. C F A 22:49, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

This makes sense to me and I don't see a problem with it. Ternera (talk) 17:30, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Resurrect ST47ProxyBot?

I've created a phab ticket to discuss possibly resurrecting ST47ProxyBot. phab:T380917. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:15, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Preventing unauthorized changes to edit filter configuration

Inexperienced users should not be making changes to Template:DatBot filters related to filters they may not be able to view, especially new or experimental filters that aren't stable, and there's potential for abuse by disruptive users. This is something I've been concerned about for a while. Generally, we would solve this with template protection or full protection, but that would prevent EFMs and EFHs from modifying the page, so I instead added a filter at 484 (hist · log). While this is a bit of a corner case right now, the runtime cost is very low, and I think there may be some similar use cases in the future. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 22:46, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I talked with DatGuy earlier, keeping him in the loop here. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 22:53, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I mean, feasibly template protection could work, the only problem that would be run into would be that all the (10?) non-admin EFMs would likely immediately request the template editor permission, which isn't a...bad idea (I've mentally floated proposing editinterface to eliminate the need for edit requests for filter messages, but frankly I don't have the confidence to put it up for an RfC given it would likely fail pretty badly, given it includes all the MediaWiki pages, not just the ones adding it would fix). Theoretically the granting guidelines are merely guidelines, and I can't think of a much better substitute for proof of technical experience than a community consensus showing such. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 23:37, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, adding the templateeditor right to EFMs is another option. However, it's not worth proposing based on a single example (the proposal would also likely fail), especially when we have a workaround that addresses the immediate need. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 00:01, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Most people don't edit that page, and the edit request process is always available too. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:41, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

I wondered in the past if it would make sense that: Those who can't see private filters, can't add them to {{DatBot filters}}. I guess Daniel had the same idea. Nobody (talk) 06:23, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

And FYI, there are no users that disruptively moved that edit filter configuration page, but it's better to be safe than sorry. Codename Noreste 🤔 Talk 21:19, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

The page has been indefinitely fully move protected for several years. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 21:31, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I'll also just note that why we need to enforce pseudo-edit protection that goes beyond EC users (that do not hold edit filter privileges) is because of Special:Diff/1259682905. Codename Noreste 🤔 Talk 16:59, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

A single unwanted edit? That's what revert is for. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:20, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

No. That user added a private filter while they can't see private filters. Codename Noreste 🤔 Talk 19:02, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

• I don't think we should be using the abusefilter as page protection for a single page. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:39, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

  Do you mean this as in "We shouldn't use an abusefilter for pseudo page protection" or "We shouldn't have a abusefilter for one specific page"? Nobody (talk) 18:42, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

  If we had a way to allow edits by EFMs (see above), I would be inclined to agree. Without this filter in place, the risk is too high. We're dependent on DatBot to report abuse to AIV and there's significant history of disruptive editors modifying configuration (in the last year: User:DatBot/Filter reporter/Run, User:MDanielsBot/AIVStop, User:Lowercase sigmabot III/Shutoff, User:ClueBot NG/AngryOptin, User:GreenC bot/button, and User:Yapperbot/kill/FRS). Some specific LTAs will similarly remove, or attempt to remove, page protection requests. I also don't believe this will limited to a single page in the future. I think we can let it grow organically, though. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 20:27, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Active filters that should have the extendedconfirmed condition modified

• 782 (hist · log)
• 833 (hist · log)

Per Wikipedia:Edit filter/Traps and pitfalls#user_rights, please change !("extendedconfirmed" in user_rights) to !contains_any(user_groups, "extendedconfirmed", "sysop", "bot"), as user rights when using a bot password or an OAuth application may be limited. Thank you. Codename Noreste 🤔 Talk 03:31, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done EggRoll97 ^(talk) 00:08, 29 November 2024 (UTC)