DZ
DefZone.Net

Kien thuc cong nghe & giai tri

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Concern about filter 1045

[edit]

Hi! I just tripped filter 1045 at a draft I'm almost done rescuing. I've been adding links to sources where the publication's official archives are hosted on Google drive (see Wikipedia talk:Citing sources § Linking google drive for my question to the community on how best to do this).

I'm not concerned that I tripped the filter (it's not a false positive: just an edge case). My concern is that I linked google drive documents in the draft three times previously, and none of those edits tripped the filter (false negatives). Not sure what the difference is between the triggering edit and the non-triggering edits, but it seems maybe this filter isn't activating as often as intended. Folly Mox (talk) 15:02, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, WP:EFN is a more active page. So put simply, filter 1045 does not trigger if the text already contains one of the following: a link to google drive, or a link to a PDF page. It seems to me that the former applies to your later edits, and the latter applies to an early edit (this one). Adding a PDF (even though that's not what you were doing) from a self-published site is tolerated by design. I'll let someone else add perfection to the filter if they can, but in the meantime as you say, edge cases. -- zzuuzz (talk) 15:22, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ungraceful fail

[edit]

My attempt (see 19:33, 17 October 2024 in my filter log) to ask for a page protection at RfPP failed. It turned out there was a (private) edit filter preventing it. Fair enough. But the failure is ungraceful.

I used the 'click this button to request protection' button that opens a (JavaScript-powered?) page to pre-fill the report. But the edit filter prevented it from being saved… silently. I was left with a page that just said "saving…" forever.

Of course, I assumed the error was my browser, so did it again. Same result. Then I tried to added it manually. Only then did the edit filter hit get reported to me.

As I say, this is an ungraceful fail, with no fallback, to the point of being actively unhelpful. Can anything be done? 80.42.207.226 (talk) 19:49, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like MediaWiki:Request-page-protection-form.js might have a bug (doesn't take into account API queries that fail via the edit filter). The author Enterprisey is inactive, but SD0001 is also listed as an author, so maybe he'd be willing to take a look. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:26, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed in Wikipedia talk:Requests for page protection#Interface protected edit request 19 October 2024. – SD0001 (talk) 10:43, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Edit filter noticeboard archiving

[edit]

Does anyone think we should lower the time interval and number of unarchived sections showing for the archiving period on Wikipedia:Edit filter noticeboard? Currently, Lowercase sigmabot III archives sections older than 10 days, and the source that appears on that page is as follows. 

{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 200K
|counter = 14
|algo = old(10d)
|archive = Wikipedia:Edit filter noticeboard/Archive %(counter)d
}}

I was thinking we could lower the interval to seven or fewer days and have no discussions with comments older than seven days appear, as follows. 

{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 200K
|counter = 14
|algo = old(7d) <!--Use lower number if we want a shorter window-->
|archive = Wikipedia:Edit filter noticeboard/Archive %(counter)d
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|minthreadsleft = 0
}}

Z. Patterson (talk) 17:17, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Z. Patterson: This probably would've been better to post on the noticeboard itself, though I suppose here is fine. I feel like the 10 day window is probably fine as is, I don't think there's much of a problem with threads sticking around a while. EggRoll97 (talk) 21:59, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's especially fine given that discussions there often entail making changes to filters and monitoring for a time. Sam Walton (talk) 22:06, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@EggRoll97 and Samwalton9: I understand. Thank you. Z. Patterson (talk) 00:36, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Compatibility with temp accounts

[edit]

Hello, I need your help with making filters compatible with temporary accounts. There are just over 20 of them needing an update/verification. In T369611, you will find an instruction and the lists of filters. Because some are/may be private, only users with NDA access on Phab and subscribers can view the lists. If you'd like to help me, let me know and I will add you to the subscriber list. Thanks! SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 14:05, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Edit filter" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect Edit filter has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 22 § Edit filter until a consensus is reached. Perfect4th (talk) 19:16, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

chrome-extension?

[edit]

I'd like to propose that the following be added to the edit filter.

  • chrome-extension://

If someone is working in Chrome and clicks on a pdf, what ends up in the URL box starts with chrome-extension:// and then a long edit string. So instead of

what is in the URL box is

I'm currently using AWB to clear these up and there have been a couple of oddities (which may be worse cut and paste) but most fit the above where chrome-extension.*/http can be replaced with http to give the valid url. Please let me know if this should be proposed elsewhere.Naraht (talk) 14:54, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that…
I don't use Chrome, so I dunno if other extensions could do same thing. — regards, Revi 09:37, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]