Wikipedia talk:Edit filter

A filter to catch inexperienced users edits on thier talk page when they add an article sized text

Hi, Is there any filter to catch edits where users go to their talk page and add slightly or very long medium article sized text? Sometimes when a user is inexperienced or his/her article has been deleted several times, he/she posts the article on his/her talk page, and such edits should be tagged or even prevented. I didn't have the right to see some of the filters. Thanks! ⇒ AramTalk 16:50, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

@Aram: To my knowledge, there is no filter like this. It would be difficult to design one, and I frankly doubt it would work very well. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:47, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Simple filter request

Hi, please can we have a filter for additions of the term "sexual predator"? There might be the odd false positive but there are very legitimate reasons for that phrase to be added to an existing article. The filter doesn't even necessarily need to take any action; we could just get the bot to report all hits to AIV for review by a human admin. See this IP and this account from today, but this is an LTA who has been doing it on and off for months. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:57, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell: You might want to look at whether filter 1181 could be apropos, as well as Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/CalebHughes. Also a pro-tip: Caleb creates an account, then gets the IP soft blocked, then uses the account on the same IP. Thus you usually want to hard block the IP. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:12, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

@Zzuuzz: Thanks for the tip! I usually just revert, block, ignore without really caring which loony it is but hard blocking the IPs is definitely worth knowing. 1181 seems to be catching it all; can we just add that to DatBot's list? If it starts disallowing, he'll probably just change his MO but hopefully reporting to AIV will mean he gets blocked sooner. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:40, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Edit_filter/Current nominated for deletion

People might be interested in Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Edit_filter/Current. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:14, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Ok. I edited an talk page and it did an edit filter saying an user was disrupted. Any meaning? Or an mistake? 126.79.150.248 (talk) 01:53, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

14 July Community Call

Edit Check protoype (mobile)

Hi y'all – as people interested in using software to help moderate edits, the Editing Team thought some of you might be interested in participating the virtual meeting we're hosting this Friday, 14 July (15:30 to 17:00 UTC).

We'll use this time to discuss Edit Check, a new project that will present people with guidance while they're editing.

The first "check" we're building automatically prompts people to add a reference when they don't think to do so themselves.

Regardless of whether you're able to make the meeting, we would value learning what you all think of the Edit Check prototype.

If the above brings any questions to mind, please ping me so that I can try to answer them.

In the meantime, this MediaWiki page should contain all the information you need to join Friday's conversation. PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 22:12, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Third party edit filter manager requests

I think 3rd party requests for EFM should be disallowed. We already have elemnts of RfA lite with the process and having nominators would just make that more true. I don't know that this would be helpful to anyone. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:46, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I do agree with making this not RfA like, but at the same time "does an existing EFM I already trust endorse this user" is an easy way of knowing I can support this user. Galobtter (talk) 01:54, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Isn't that what the waiting period is for? Barkeep49 (talk) 01:56, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Sure, an EFM can also just endorse in the comments, rather than writing a nominating statement. Galobtter (talk) 03:32, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

It's interesting that substantially different community-consensus processes for granting rights seem to converge in ways. I say "substantially different" because the process here invites a different community that participates compared to RfA. Even on EFN, third party nominators seem to make requests go a lot more smoothly. An EFH request also had a third party nominator, and it led to consensus being greater in volume and clearer.

I suspect it's because EFH/EFM are primarily about trust (and some competence for EFM, not really needed for EFH), and third party nominators serve as a good metric for trust. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:16, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Merge filter 874 and filter 1196 into filter 102

Moved to the correct noticeboard page

Sorry... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:06, 22 January 2024 (UTC)