Wikipedia:Edit filter noticeboard

Welcome to the edit filter noticeboard

WATCH Recent filter changes (): Filter 1046 (new) — Actions: <span style='color:red; Flags: enabled,public; Pattern modified Last changed at 02:35, 18 March 2020 (UTC) Filter 54 (restored) — Flags: enabled Last changed at 19:25, 16 March 2020 (UTC) Filter 53 (restored) — Flags: enabled,private; Pattern modified Last changed at 07:37, 16 March 2020 (UTC) Filter 1045 (new) — Actions: tag,warn; Flags: enabled; Pattern modified Last changed at 10:16, 15 March 2020 (UTC) Filter 1044 (new) — Actions: warn; Flags: enabled,public; Pattern modified Last changed at 08:01, 15 March 2020 (UTC) Filter 1042 (new) — Actions: none; Flags: enabled,public; Pattern modified Last changed at 00:21, 15 March 2020 (UTC) Filter 1043 (new) — Actions: none; Flags: enabled,public; Pattern modified Last changed at 00:40, 15 March 2020 (UTC) Filter 149 — Pattern modified Last changed at 20:38, 14 March 2020 (UTC) Filter 1041 (new) — Actions: none; Flags: enabled,public; Pattern modified Last changed at 20:49, 14 March 2020 (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. There are currently 230 enabled filters and 20 stale filters with no hits in the past 30 days (). See also the profiling data and edit filter graphs. Click here to start a new discussion thread

IMDB

I am minded to create a filter to trap and warn when editors attempt to add a <ref> containing either imdb.com or {{imdb}}. This is a user-edited site and not a RS, I keep finding articles with references to IMDB as if it were a reliable source. Guy (help!) 06:41, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

JzG, no objections from me. If you add it to a test filter I'd be happy to help review the results. creffett (talk) 01:21, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

@Guy: I would probably limit such a warning to non-autoconfirmed editors (maybe non-extended confirmed if you really wanted to go hardcore), but I can imagine this could be pretty annoying for editors who follow Wikipedia:Citing IMDb. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:31, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

JzG, it is also pretty common for some editors to create stubs on dubiously notable films based solely on IMDb information. Link to IMDb, the article's only source, is then usually placed in "External links" section. So maybe the potential filter should not be restricted only to <ref>s containing IMDb links. Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 01:43, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Tymon.r, that was what I said, yes. Guy (help!) 10:36, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

JzG, no objections from me either. Seems like a decent idea with User:MJL's caveats. -- Alexf^(talk) 12:06, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Filter 894

• Filter 894 (log)

I would like to split this into two parts: publisher name in the {{cite}} tags, and URLs. This is somewhat complicated by the fact that the urls of many of these publishers are now blacklisted, and people are responding (predictably) by removing the protocol string and formatting them as plain text rather than links. Because responding to blacklisting by not adding the link to the vanity press would be outrageous...

• selfpub := "(publisher|work)\s?[=,:]\s?(Author\s?House|Trafford\s?Publishing|iUniverse\s?|Lulu|XLibris|Edwin\s?Mellen\s?Press|Grosvenor\s?House\sd?Publishing)\b"; should trap the publishers
• selfpuburl := "\b(authorhouse|createspace|grosvenorhousepublishing|iuniverse|lulu|mellenpress|trafford|xlibris)\.\w{2,3}\b"; should trap the sites, if I have this right?

But I can't use added_links because the blacklisted ones are not added as links. I guess added_lines irlike (selfpub|selfpuburl) would work? Guy (help!) 09:56, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: Using \.\w{2,3} instead of explicitly listing the TLDs for each site could cause FPs on filenames, e.g. these, or unrelated sites, e.g. https://www.trafford.gov.uk. Probably best to test whatever you do in a separate log-only filter for at least a few days. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:47, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Suffusion of Yellow, fair point. The big issue is that createspace has dozens of tlds. Most of them are .com only. Guy (help!) 18:22, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: Ok, changed the others to .com (diff). Did you mean to leave out CreateSpace from the first line? I'm seeing quite a few false negatives with the current filter. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:08, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Suffusion of Yellow, no I did not. I dropped it copying from my test sandbox Guy (help!) 22:08, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: I'm seeing a problem here. User A adds a "plain" reference, but because there's no URL or citation template, the filter doesn't catch it. For example, Special:AbuseLog/26083382 was caught by the old version of the filter, but wouldn't be now. Later, User B formats the reference using a citation template, and gets warned for something that was already on the page. For example, in Special:AbuseLog/26130647 the SPS was already there. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:51, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Suffusion of Yellow, good spot. What do you suggest? Guy (help!) 22:45, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: It may be be best to go back to Special:AbuseFilter/history/894/item/23137 after all, unless that was causing its own problems. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 00:46, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Suffusion of Yellow, that was kind of ugly and had its own issues of false positives - but maybe we can be simpler here: anything in External Links, References or Further Reading, and anything in a ref or {{cite}} tag, would be questionable. Maybe I can think of something around that. Guy (help!) 10:07, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Tweak to WikiLeaks filter

Had a false positive on 1034 here. Looks like it tripped on "WikiLeaks.", that is, the word followed by a sentence-ending period. Can we narrow it to wikileaks.com, or does it exist under multiple TLDs? Ping JzG, looks like your filter. creffett (talk) 03:31, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Creffett, it has multiple tlds, but .org and .com are the most common I think. Guy (help!) 09:23, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

JzG, all right, then how about changing the ending to something like \.\w{2,3} like you suggested for 894 above? ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 13:04, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

@Creffpublic: Removed what appeared to be a duplicate signature. Invalid^OS (talk) 13:59, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Exclude userboxes in 994

I'm starting to watch 994, it's a useful filter but I see a good number of false positives for custom userboxes with images. Could we add an exclusion to it? Maybe something like !added_lines irlike "{{\s*userbox" (or something like that). Ping MusikAnimal since you created the filter originally. creffett (talk) 03:38, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

@Creffett: I'd say checking that and then checking if it is in userspace? It seems near impossible to detect if a template is a userbox. Invalid^OS_talk 00:56, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

InvalidOS, pretty sure it's only catching templates in Template: space. creffett (talk) 01:21, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

We obviously can't detect all userboxes but we can catch those which use {{userbox}} as a meta template. No-brainer mostly, forgot to update here but  Done. --qedk (t 桜 c) 11:52, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Review of Kudpung's edit filter manager rights

Editor says they no longer need this (and it has been removed). — xaosflux ^Talk 01:13, 1 March 2020 (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 the final decision of the Arbitration Committee at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kudpung, Kudpung's administrator rights were removed. Since he self-granted edit filter manager rights, I am posting here per the clerk procedures to request a review of whether he should keep these rights. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:11, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

• Kudpung has never edited a filter. --qedk (t 桜 c) 23:19, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
• Aren't edit filter managers required to be administrators? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:44, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

  Ivanvector, don't think so. Generally only administrators are edit filter managers, but trusted non-admin users are allowed (see WP:EFM). Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:56, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

• As Kudpung has never updated a filter and also just declared "semi-retirement" it is unlikely this has any utility for him. The arbcom case doesn't have any special bearing on this, and as the remedy cited "conduct" concerns, not "trust" concerns I don't see an immediate need to remove this. Suggest this: let's give Kudpung a week to respond here if he still has a need for this, defaulting to removal if no response. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:51, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
• Agree with xaosflux. I don't see a need at this time. -- Alexf^(talk) 00:56, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

• I removed EFM from Kudpung's account. To quote WP:EFM: "The assignment of the edit filter manager user right to non-admins is highly restricted. It should only be requested by and given to highly trusted users, when there is a clear and demonstrated need for it." I'm not questioning trust, but as Kudpung has never used the right the clear and demonstrated need isn't met. Prodego ^talk 00:59, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The edit filter right was used at the time to examine certain filters to see how they work in relation to the developments that were taking place with all things concerned with NPP, AfC, and ORES. It is not needed needed now and no conjecture should be raised as to why I accorded my account that right. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:11, 1 March 2020 (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.

Blogs and personal websites

It seems to me that anything in a reference tag or citation template that links to angelfire, geocities, rootsweb, blogspot/blogger, livejournal or wordpress, should probably receive a warning like the self-published source warning in Filter 894 (log). Guy (help!) 10:10, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

• Agree Seems like a good idea to me. -- Alexf^(talk) 11:17, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

New bot at EFFPR

Hi folks, this is a notification that my bot that was discussed in Wikipedia:Edit_filter_noticeboard/Archive_6#Bot_idea_for_EFFP has recently been approved and implemented. This will cause EFFPR to be significantly shorter as handled reports will be archived more recently. --Majavah ^(t/c) 19:04, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

@Majavah: Thanks for all your work on the bot! I added __NOINDEX__ to Wikipedia:Edit filter/False positives/Rolling archive/Header, in case people use the lack of a permanent archive to as an excuse to not remove the usual "filter wouldn't let me say that John Doe is a _____ but he really is a total _____!!!!" reports. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:04, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Special:AbuseLog/26225194

I can't figure out how this was triggered. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 09:29, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

The filter is entitled "User adds link containing username", and the username is simply "J". Does that help? If they add links again it's going to be quite difficult for this user to avoid the filter, until they reach the minimum edit count of 40. We could probably set a minimum length for the username, but this is probably a rare occurrence. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:00, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

I think a minimum length could be a good idea, say 3-5 characters? I can't see that the filter is likely to be useful below this length anyway. Sam Walton (talk) 11:46, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Setting the minimum length to 3 characters would fix the problem. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 12:20, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

I couldn't find any other FPs related to this in the last few hundred hits. But, the change seems harmless enough, so  Done. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:40, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Redirect in filter log

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T247615

Hello all, I have seen a few edits on redirect pages over at the filter log (for example, Special:AbuseLog/22937940 on JFK). Instead of staying on the redirect page it redirects automatically to the target page. Is it possible to disable redirects on filter logs? -- LuK3 (Talk) 14:12, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Phabricator task opened. I believe this would require a change to the software in order to accomplish. Invalid^OS_talk 14:37, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

@InvalidOS: https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/mediawiki/extensions/AbuseFilter/+/579584/ should fix this. Simple tweak to specify redirect=no. Hopefully it'll be reviewed soon DannyS712 (talk) 15:27, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

GS alerts tagged by edit filter 602

Hi everyone. It appears {{gs/alert}} contains the line <!-- Derived from Template:Ds/alert --> and therefore, when added to a talk page, it is tagged by edit filter 602 (the DS alert one). Is this supposed to happen? --MrClog (talk) 22:57, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

@MrClog: It is intended, GS is a community-authorized DS regime, which following from WP:AC/DS compulsorily requires an editor to be made aware (see "Awareness" under AC/DS). Logging alerts by noting it on a page is annoying and people might forget it, the edit filter maintains logs for them, and serves as proof that an editor was aware or not aware (no question of "I did not alert the editor three times" or "I was never alerted"). --qedk (t 心 c) 23:38, 17 March 2020 (UTC)