Wikipedia:Edit_filter_noticeboard

• PharyngealImplosive7 (t · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)}

Hi guys. I am requesting the EFH right today. I meet all criteria mentioned in the guidelines for obtaining this perm and believe that it would help me when answering FP reports on WP:EFFPR. I have edited that page more than 500 times (which seems to be the status quo here) and that can be seen in xtools (I don't have the link currently but I'm sure you guys can search manually). I also have experience with RegEx and the edit filter's code syntax, and have suggested some changes (with RegEx) to various filters including adding \bgyat\b to one of the meme filters. I have also helped with some bad word substitutions and provided code there. I also believe that I am trustworthy enough to not leak the contents of any private filters, and have good account security. Overall, I think that I am a good candidate for EFH, and thank you for reading this proposal. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 01:40, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Support as you're helpful in dealing with false positives. – 64andtim ^(talk) 02:03, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

• You started editing this page 40 days ago and have already responded to over 500 reports in this short time.That’s good, I'm curious about your experience with RegEx. Can you: 1. Match a string containing a valid IPv4 address? 2. Match a string containing a valid email address with an optional subdomain? 3. Match the following string: Image = random_image.jpg? – DreamRimmer (talk) 03:06, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

  @DreamRimmer: Thanks for the conplement. While I am not an expert, I can try to provide solutions for you (hopefully I didn't mess something up with all the typing and copying/pasting).

  1. This should match valid IPv4 addresses and has the flags of g and m: ^(?:[1-9]?[0-9]\.|1[0-9]{2}\.|2[0-5]{2}\.){3}(?:[1-9]?[0-9]|1[0-9]{2}|2[0-5]{2})$.

  2. This would be a pain to make. The closest I've got is ^\S+@\S*\.*\S+\.\S+$ but it allows invalid emails like abc@.xyz.com. It has the flags of g, m, and i.

  3. ^Image \= random\_image\.jpg$ should work with flags g and m.

  In all, I do have a moderate understanding of RegEx, but I'm not an expert, and I'm sure I can help author and definitely read filters. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 05:16, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for the solutions; these are all correct. I am happy to support, as you are well aware of what vandalism is, how filters work, and also have knowledge of regular expressions. – DreamRimmer (talk) 05:31, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I am changing my vote to neutral based on the rationales of the opposing votes. Please don't be discouraged and keep up your good work; you are valuable to us. – DreamRimmer (talk) 16:13, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

• @PharyngealImplosive7 @DreamRimmer without evaluating the actual request yet, I don't think the first answer is correct - separate from the questionable use of the multiline flag, it doesn't match things like 1.209.3.4 which I'm pretty sure is valid. The regex needs that any 2xx part of an IP have both of those digits be 0-5 but actually the value just needs to be in the range 20-55, so things like 209 are valid. --DannyS712 (talk) 08:15, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

  @DannyS712, I agree with you. I know that even though it can match many valid IPv4 addresses, it might also match some incorrect ones or even overlook some correct ones because of its limitations. But honestly, I didn't notice any issues with their work. Overall, their responses were correct. They stated that they have a moderate understanding of regex, and I am satisfied with their solutions. I believe they possess sufficient experience to be considered for an EPH role. – DreamRimmer (talk) 09:17, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

  Would \b(?:(?:2(?:[0-4][0-9]|5[0-5])|[0-1]?[0-9]?[0-9])\.){3}(?:(?:2([0-4][0-9]|5[0-5])|[0-1]?[0-9]?[0-9]))\b work? Nobody (talk) 12:19, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

  It should work, but it would not match the 201 to 255 range in the fourth segment. – DreamRimmer (talk) 13:06, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

  Tried to fix it and ended up doing this: (1?[1-9]?[0-9]|2?(?:[0-4]?[0-9]|5[0-5]))\.(1?[1-9]?[0-9]|2?(?:[0-4]?[0-9]|5[0-5]))\.(1?[1-9]?[0-9]|2?(?:[0-4]?[0-9]|5[0-5]))\.(1?[1-9]?[0-9]|2?(?:[0-4]?[0-9]|5[0-5]))\b But this just looks to long. Nobody (talk) 13:24, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah that was incorrect. The 200 part could be fixed to 2[0-4][0-9]\.|25[0-5]\..– PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 16:20, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

• Neutral While they do have the usual requirements (and are better at RegEx than me). This, this and this don't make me believe that they've been around for long enough to be ready for that right. Same with this discussion. I'm also not sure I agree with this comment. Nobody (talk) 06:25, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

  1. Pinning was fine, it wasn't disruptive.

  2. I don't understand the issue. PharyngealImplosive7 didn't respond to a report that was responded to. Perhaps @Philipnelson99: wasn't aware that there is a bug with the script that the script responds to one section above the section you have selected to respond to?

  3. we should encourage more coordination and communication instead of "silently figuring out everything on your own", the latter admittedly can be a good quality, but has no relevance to EFH. Asking people should be normal.

  4. I don't understand why a reasonable proposal is bad?

  5. Approaching with caution makes them more qualified for EFH, not less. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 06:46, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

  1. If you know of MajavahBot/EFFP Helper Configuration, then you know that not answered reports stay for 3 days before being archived. Pinning them after just 30 minutes isn't disruptive I agree, but I'd say it's unnecessary.
  2. This shows it more clearly, not a script issue, but a edit conflict.
  3. While I agree with your take, it doesn't take long to see how much the average respond time for private filter reports is. (I'm assuming that if he knew about MajavahBot/EFFP Helper Configuration he wouldn't have made that section, but that also shows that they haven't been around for long.)
  4. That's just my opinion feel free to disagree.
  5. Caution is good I agree. But those filter hits don't look like a legitimate editor at all to me. But since you can see those private filter hits. Are the edits promotional or Autobiography as I'm assuming? Nobody (talk) 07:18, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not evaluating this request at the moment but I'm aware of the bug. The diff that is linked on section 2 here shows the issue better. For what it's worth after discussing responding to reports that have been answered with PharyngealImplosive7 this hasn't been an issue. Additionally, they haven't pinned anything hastily after I asked them not to and explained how MajavahBot works. Philipnelson99 (talk) 13:06, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

• There was a time when EFH was scarcely granted at this board. Most EFH users were SPI clerks or EFMs who gave up that right, and (if I recall correctly...) candidates seeking it for other reasons were often suggested to go to RfA, as the level of trust was considered similar. (I can't quite remember if that was just EFM or EFH as well, I think both.) In particular, activity at EFFP was generally not considered to be sufficient for EFH. I think the bar was perhaps too high then, but I'd be cautious of it swinging in the other direction too much, and EFH being granted like the WP:PERM rights. I think your help at EFFP is useful and immensely appreciated, but I'm not sure I can support especilly on the back of ~4 months of effective activity. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:01, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per PR. I'm afraid that only a few months of consistent activity isn't enough for such a sensitive permission. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 13:36, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose 8 month old account with 4 months of recent activity. Less than 3000 total edits across the wiki. Only 13 edits to AIV, 0 to UAA, and 5 to SPI case pages. I'm not calling the requester an LTA, but if an LTA were to register an account and work towards the EFH right, it would look like this. 508 edits to EFFP in such a short time and creating this request immediately after passing the 500 edit threshold that some users (not I) consider as a or the requirement for EFH is not a good look.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: a bunch of edits calling out usually obvious vandalism at EFFP is not a suitable criterion for EFH eligibility. It's unclear what the requester will bring to the table with this role as they don't need it to continue helping with public filters at EFFP. Additionally, their answers to regex questions #1 and #2 are incorrect, and #2 in particular shows a lack of consideration for which are valid vs. invalid characters in an e-mail address.

Granting this request at this time would be extremely reckless. I hope the requester understands the utmost importance of trust for this role and I thank them for their contributions and help at EFFP and would encourage them to keep it up and to make a request again no sooner than 1 to 2 years of activity to eliminate concerns over the security of the private filters. Uhai (talk) 14:10, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per ProcrastinatingReader and Uhai who both have legitimate reasons for not supporting. Philipnelson99 (talk) 14:34, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose Uhai sums up my concerns fairly well --DannyS712 (talk) 14:52, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose unfortunately, per everybody else. I appreciate your help at EFFPR, but right now you might be a little inexperienced at the moment. As EggRoll97 said, "abuse of edit filters are virtually undetectable". Also, responding to reports that only involve private filters could potentially mean that you act reckless or you don't understand the meaning of EFFPR, and that's what happened to my first (and failed, yet withdrawn) nomination; I have learned that the hard way. In addition to the EFFPR response count, consider requesting this again in a year or two to demonstrate that you really need this highly-sensitive right. – 64andtim ^(talk) 15:48, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
• I understand everyone's concerns and am withdrawing this request. This has been a learning experience for me and I may request this perm in the future when I'm more experienced and seem more trustworthy. Thank you all again. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 16:23, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Some points I want to raise after the closure: I don't understand why commenters expect the requestor to be EFMs-in-waiting. I think our backlog is healthy and kept low with the amount of EFHs and EFMs that we have. So having another EFH would not give us a lot of benefits unless they want to help with authoring filters. (which having EFH could help them demonstrate their technical contributions better I suppose) Other EFMs have also suggested that EFH doesn't make much sense and we should just tell people to request EFM directly, because sometimes we apply a higher requirement for EFH candidates than admin candidates, and unbundling it would just make EFM requests harder making EFH a prerequisite. As an aside, I am curious what the quotes in the summary of the withdrawal mean. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 04:01, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Interestingly, one of the three most recent grantees of EFH has been essentially MIA at EFFP since receiving it, and things don't seem worse for the wear.

And the "'major' concerns" comment rubs me the wrong way and makes me question the nominee's judgment and ability to accept criticism. An account less than a year old requesting arguably the third most sensitive permission after EFM and sysop is a major concern. If you were to go to RFA with an account 9 months old it would be a WP:SNOW early close, WP:NOTNOW, WP:NQY, yadda yadda. The diff I linked was perhaps a little nitpicky, however, as I said, was one of multiple instances that I noticed, including where the user felt the need to message me about reverting a frivolous false positive report that had "nigro" in the section header, presumably a report they were about to respond to. Uhai (talk) 14:19, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Agreed on the comment, it rubs me the wrong way too. I was curious about myself and another request, so see quarry:query/80483. I don't know though, is EFH being granted really correlated with increased involvement with edit filters? Perhaps conferring the title boosted confidence? 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 15:39, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

fwiw, for me it wasn't a confidence boost to get EFH. I simply wanted EFH because I was interested in helping with the private filters specifically. I've coordinated a lot with Ingenuity directly about the private filters since receiving EFH. Eventually I will go for EFM. But I think my bump in responses at EFFPR is also correlated with an increase in editing overall.

See my xtools link here [2].

Philipnelson99 (talk) 15:57, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

About that, I apologize if I was unable to accept criticism or about my judgment in question, I think this was also not a good idea doing a nomination when my account is less than a year old. About these "major concerns", I had to address that I didn't understand much about WP:DENY, and that I'm probably not trustworthy yet doing such a nomination too soon for this right. – 64andtim ^(talk) 16:28, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

This is the second time you are using quotes. They may be interpreted as scare quotes. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 16:37, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I think we should assume good faith and encourage 64andtim, as I believe they are trying their best to acknowledge their mistakes and improve. – DreamRimmer (talk) 16:45, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

well yes, this is just to be up front about communication. I am assuming good faith that perhaps 64andtim does not know of the potential negative connotations of using quotes around the word "major", then the phrase "major concerns". 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 16:48, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I understand now that I will not use such scare quotes next time, and I too am assuming good faith to everyone. – 64andtim ^(talk) 17:08, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Not trying to be a downer but stating a fact, AGF generally turns into CIR or NOTHERE eventually. Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (they/them) 02:59, 18 February 2024 (UTC)