Jump to content

Meta:Requests for comment/Regarding filter 161

Add links
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
The following request for comments is closed. After thinking it over carefully, what Johannes and Leaderboard said also makes sense. Since there isn’t any significant impact at the moment, and it seems that no one has expressed support for my proposal, I’m withdrawing this request. Sorry for the earlier disturbance, Leaderboard.
Notifying @Leaderboard, Johannnes89, Codename Noreste, and Tanbiruzzaman, thank you all for participating in this discussion. 浅村しき (talk) 13:22, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement of the issue

[edit]

Hello everyone. I previously reviewed filter 161 and felt that some parts of the filter may warrant changes, so I am opening this RfC to invite discussion.

  1. I noticed that in October last year, Leaderboard changed the edit-count requirement in the filter from 500 local edits to 500 global edits. Sorry but I oppose this change for the following reasons: I believe that requiring only 500 global edits sets the bar too low. While it may reduce false positives, it also makes it easier for users who vandalize across wikis to get around the filter. Some LTAs (sockpuppets) have even managed to reach extended confirmed status before starting their activities (e.g. en:Special:Contributions/Landez). Userpages on Meta-Wiki are among the most crucial across all Wikimedia sites, as they are displayed on all wikis where the user has not created a local user page. Therefore, in principle, I think that no one other than the user themselves should edit them; in addition, if someone wants to edit another user’s user page on Meta-Wiki, they should be sufficiently familiar with Meta-Wiki, and I do not think that users with merely 500 global edits necessarily meet that standard. Furthermore, if a user is disallowed by this filter, they can submit an edit request, or an administrator can grant them autopatrolled right if appropriate. Therefore, I hope the requirement can be reverted to the original 500 local edits.
  2. Should we consider making this filter private? Most of the edits caught by this filter are vandalism (mainly spam and personal attacks; see also the filter logs on my user page for examples). I think such content is not very suitable for display in public filter logs. In addition, many other sites’ equivalent filters (such as zhwiki and jawiki) are set to private.
  3. One more question I would like to raise: can this filter currently catch anonymous users with more than 500 edits? In the past, when IP editing was the norm, this would certainly have been caught. However, with the current temporary accounts, which record edit counts for each account, I wonder whether it might be possible for a temporary account with more than 500 edits to bypass the filter. If that is possible, I would suggest adding a restriction to address this.

That’s all. I would especially like to invite @Leaderboard, Johannnes89 and Codename Noreste to join the discussion. Thank you in advance. Yours sincerely 浅村しき (talk) 16:37, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • See User_talk:Leaderboard#Filter_161_2. My responses to their questions for (1) and (2) remain the same. For (3), you raise a good point in that the filter treats temp accounts as regular accounts, and this can easily be changed. Easy to do, but again is this necessary? Leaderboard (talk) 16:56, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    "Is this necessary", I naturally think it is necessary. Previously, IP users would be disallowed by this filter regardless of how many edits they made, and I believe the same should continue to apply now that IP users have become temporary users. This is exactly the purpose of initiating this RfC, to see whether more people consider these changes necessary. Thanks. 浅村しき (talk) 17:02, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Creating an RfC to discuss a simple filter change… RfH would have been the better option. Johannnes89 (talk) 19:48, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, if I were to make the request at RfH, I am afraid it might be quickly rejected. I also hope to gather somewhat broader opinions, so I posted it here instead. 浅村しき (talk) 02:52, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me provide additional reasoning. A user may be quite familiar with how Wikipedia operates and may have made many contributions there, but that does not necessarily mean they are familiar with the main content and practices of Meta-Wiki. On the other hand, a user who has made 500 or more edits on Meta-Wiki is almost certainly also active on other Wikimedia sites, since it is unlikely that someone would start out contributing only to Meta-Wiki.
    For example, let me show you an edit: Special:Diff/30260156. In this case, the user directly tagged the user page of Bosco Sin, even though he had only been globally blocked (and not on Meta-Wiki itself), rather than globally locked. This even led XXB to fully protect Bosco Sin’s userpage for one year. From what I can see, this user has not made more than 500 edits on Meta-Wiki; under the previous filter rules, this edit would have been intercepted.
    Therefore, I firmly believe that restoring the previous requirement of at least 500 local edits is necessary. 浅村しき (talk) 05:30, 20 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    ​Another example. 浅村しき (talk) 13:37, 20 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Both errors are fairly minor and if I were you, I would simply let them know. One option is to set the filter so that it does not trigger if someone uses the delete template, but I don't believe that's needed. Leaderboard (talk) 14:55, 20 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, reminding them is certainly a good approach, but sometimes I just don’t feel like doing so; besides, wouldn’t it be better to block it directly with a filter, so no reminder is even needed? 浅村しき (talk) 02:52, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    As an admin who remained uninvolved here in this RFC, please forward such requests like these to Meta:RFH (I also agree with Johannes), where it's more visible and that more administrators will review and comment on your discussion. Thanks. Codename Noreste (talk • contribs) 03:51, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    ​You’ve finally arrived… Alright, thank you for your comment. I’ll sort it out a bit later and then forward it. 浅村しき (talk) 03:57, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't worry, I was already aware of this RFC when you pinged me here. :) Codename Noreste (talk • contribs) 03:58, 23 March 2026 (UTC) 😄1[reply]
  • The request has been brought to Meta:RFH as well. 浅村しき (talk) 10:19, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @ShuQizhe was the issue resolved? Can you consider this rfc as withdrawn? 🪶-TΛNBIRUZZΛMΛN (💬) 15:37, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, see above. 浅村しき (talk) 13:18, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meta:Requests_for_comment/Regarding_filter_161&oldid=30400638"