This page uses content from Wikipedia and is licensed under CC BY-SA.

Wikipedia:Edit filter noticeboard

Welcome to the edit filter noticeboard
Filter 1112 — Pattern modified
Last changed at 23:36, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Filter 1129 (new) — Actions: none; Flags: enabled,public; Pattern modified

Last changed at 22:39, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Filter 1128 (new) — Actions: throttle; Flags: enabled,private; Pattern modified

Last changed at 17:44, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Filter 1127 — Flags: disabled

Last changed at 11:43, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Filter 384 — Pattern modified

Last changed at 18:36, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Filter 1124 — Pattern modified

Last changed at 20:17, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Filter 1126 (new) — Actions: disallow; Flags: enabled,public; Pattern modified

Last changed at 19:23, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Filter 1117 (deleted) — Flags: disabled

Last changed at 23:08, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Filter 1014 — Flags: enabled; Pattern modified

Last changed at 21:27, 3 March 2021 (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.


Click here to start a new discussion thread


Edit filter manager right for ProcrastinatingReader

Granted as there is a wide consensus in support demonstrated in the discussion. — xaosflux Talk 12:57, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
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.

Per this and section above. EFR seems often backlogged; took around 5 months to implement RfC consensus for Facebook's filter. So offering to help if desired, I guess; have a CS background and experienced at writing regular expressions. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:27, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Support. ProcrastinatingReader has always had sensible suggestions, both about filters and other subjects. Plus, PR has been willing to call me out when I was wrong. We need multiple perspectives around here, lest the edit filter become the personal bot of the few active EFMs. Speaking of bots, PR's bot work demonstrates technical ability, if there was any doubt. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 02:25, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
    Reaffirming support. This isn't an RFA. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 17:56, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. Thank you for writing up the implementation for the Facebook filter. ProcrastinatingReader is highly familiar with the edit filter syntax, and would help get these requests handled in a timely manner. — Newslinger talk 02:48, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. Technically qualified, knows his regexes. Really should be considering RfA in order to get IAdmin. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:11, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes please, thanks for offering. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:24, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - And congratulations for the FB EF implementation, that lagged months behind after the RFC before you handled it, —PaleoNeonate – 12:47, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Absolutely, and in fact proc was the candidate I had in mind when I suggested the nomination/sponsorship/whatever approach to EFH/EFM a while ago. The above comments cover things pretty well, but I'd like to add that I trust them enough that I have told them small details of private filters in the past when they've asked (things like "which LTA is this filter targeting" or "what caused the false positive for that hit"). Excellent candidate for +EFM. SubjectiveNotability a GN franchise (talk to the boss) 13:43, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Trust ProcrastinatingReader without reservations. El_C 14:48, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Not much to add beyond pile-on support for a trusted editor. — The Earwig ⟨talk⟩ 15:17, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support We clearly need more active EFMs and the user appears to be qualified for the role. Iaritmioawp (talk) 16:37, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
  • On my pre-pandemic RfA to-investigate-list, so mos def. ~ Amory (utc) 17:26, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Roughly per Andrew below, it seems there's a chance PR will be party to an arbitration case that may have some bearing on behavior and similar community trust. I'd prefer to see how that resolves, in particular any evidence, before proceeding here. ~ Amory (utc) 15:57, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Case opening concluded, no concerns. ~ Amory (utc) 11:33, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support LGTM --DannyS712 (talk) 19:09, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support PR's work, both at EFR and elsewhere, has always been outstanding. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:18, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Editor is absolutely responsible in their current work, and having the EFM bit would only seem to help them. I have no objections. EggRoll97 (talk) 18:19, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - defo. Pahunkat (talk) 19:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support — Per Ritchie333. Furthermore I think EFM needs more hands on deck & personally I think ProcrastinatingReader is qualified for the job. Their technical abilities is also great. So yes please. Celestina007 (talk) 23:09, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support- No reservations from me.   Aloha27  talk  03:01, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Wait to see how Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#RexxS turns out. Rexxs contends there that ProcrastinatingReader has "implemented their own preference, unsupported by any broad community decision ... then deceptively omitted to mention the change in functionality ... and mislead the community ...". As edit filter maintenance is similar to template maintenance, similar issues of trustworthiness apply. I have no particular opinions about the technical aspects of this but there seems to be a serious procedural dispute which requires resolution before further permissions are granted. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:13, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose I'm sorry to say that although I recognise ProcrastinatingReader's technical skills, I cannot trust them with sensitive permissions. ProcrastinatingReader displays the same problem that both Betacommand and Technical 13 did: an inability to listen to concerns from others. ProcrastinatingReader created a template that attempted to combine general sanction (i.e. community) editnotices and discretionary sanction (i.e. ArbCom) editnotices, which behaved differently and had different uses. But instead of taking into account the differences, they decided to alter the behaviour of the COVID-19 editnotice for community-imposed sanctions to match that of the editnotices used for ArbCom-imposed sanctions. The result is that a decision taken unilaterally for programming convenience by someone who has never deployed a COVID-19 editnotice now prevents the editnotice being added in the way the old one could be, against the advice of the very people who use the editnotices. --RexxS (talk) 01:40, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I guess I'll comment to the above that I've explained the situation in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Post-unarchive_break. In short: See TfD #1, TfD #2 (which says Covid is a mix of -> {{Gs/editnotice}} and this). The text Rexx is saying proves his views is this unilateral addition, which was disputed by an Arb clerk as far back as June and July. I tried to discuss the deprecation of the template in mid-2020 on the talk, RexxS blocked the change so I let it be (failing to get a clear consensus for it at the time). I sent it to TfD a few months later to get consensus; the outcome was deleted, and that was implemented (not by myself, anyway). I reject that any of that was subverting consensus; I mean the entire thing was literally done at TfD which is a community discussion to gain consensus. I have made no content edits to the COVID editnotice, and my only involvement in that template was to start the TfD nom. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 04:54, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
    • More full statement about this at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Statement_by_ProcrastinatingReader, if anyone is interested. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 06:05, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
      • ProcrastinatingReader is now claiming that a deletion discussion TfD #1 for a different template which had two comments, one oppose and one delete, constitutes "consulting the community". The second deletion discussion TfD #2 simply doesn't state that the functionality was being changed, and attracted six comments, one of which requested "I think this discussion should get more visibility, maybe a notice at WP:AN or WT:ARBCOM" (which didn't happen). The outcome of that debate was not deletion, as ProcrastinatingReader deceptively claims. This is the pattern of behaviour that ProcrastinatingReader adopts: getting an idea, and then thinking that sparsely-attended discussion represent agreement with the idea, while ignoring any dissenting comments and reading their own interpretation into debates. See how the Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Post-unarchive_break was actually closed. We can't afford to grant sensitive permissions to anyone who will make significant changes without understanding the need for comprehensive prior agreement with those affected. --RexxS (talk) 18:31, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. Has the support of active edit filter managers such as Suffusion of Yellow. Best of luck. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:54, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. Majavah (talk!) 18:14, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. Not concerned about the WP:ARC since that seems to describe unrelated issues with templates and admin conduct. This is also not an RFA (a higher bar), and SoY has reaffirmed their support for PR as a candidate. –MJLTalk 18:25, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Frankly, the RexxS concerns seem petty at best. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:12, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose - per background events to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#RexxS and my/others comments there.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  17:00, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support per SoY, Newslinger, Ritchie, GN, et al. PR is a trusted and competent editor and we could use the help. (Opposition based on the arbcom case presupposes the outcome of the arbcom case: a dangerous proposition at this early stage.) Levivich harass/hound 19:52, 22 February 2021 (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.

Blablubbs granted EFH

Courtesy notification: per the rules at WP:EFH, I've granted Blablubbs the EFH bit since he is SPI clerk trainee. A bit of IAR here - the rules as written say that the bit should be granted by a CheckUser, and I'm not a CU, but I received permission from TonyBallioni, who is both a CU and Blablubbs's trainer. WP:NOTBURO and all that. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:28, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks GN. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 03:00, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

803

The page ID is 66355661, not 63640560. 83.6.99.89 (talk) 07:45, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

It seems a page with ID 63640560 does not even exist. Wonder what happened there? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:53, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Ah... It was originally changed by GeneralNotability as a result of this discussion. Looks like it changed again because it was deleted again. Good catch, IP. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:56, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
It seems to get deleted a lot, so I've converted it to use the page title instead. -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:06, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Bibliography of South America

I was unable to undo the blanking/redirection of Bibliography of South America because of a filter warning of links or references running through a local proxy. I am aware that the reason for this error is that the bibliography contains links on EBSCO which need to be fixed. However, the more pressing issue is that the complete blanking and redirection of the page without prior discussion should be reverted. I am unable to do so because of the filter, and I determined this would be the appropriate place to note it. I apologize in advance if this is not the correct place. ―NK1406 03:20, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

NK1406, I've done that for you as a contested bold edit - I didn't get stopped by the filter when using RW. Please attempt to discuss it with Reywas92 though. Pahunkat (talk) 17:25, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
FYI next time adding a report at WP:EF/FP/R might get something like this noticed quicker. Please also fix the links if possible :-) Pahunkat (talk) 17:28, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Yes, it's always possible to bypass filters and the spam blacklist using rollback. I was also about to say "just fix the links then", but it seems there are 69 EBSCO links on the page, and they've been there since it was created in 2010... Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 17:49, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Set filter 1126 to disallow

Standard notice. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1060#Uptick in vandalism on months pages. The vandalism had completely stopped, but picked up again today. Of course this can be merged with another filter later, but it's useful to track it separately for now. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:27, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "[en.wikipedia.org]"