Wikipedia:Edit filter noticeboard

Jump to navigation Jump to search
Welcome to the edit filter noticeboard
Filter 1112 (new) — Actions: none; Flags: enabled,public; Pattern modified
Last changed at 22:54, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Filter 1069 (deleted) — Actions: none; Flags: disabled

Last changed at 19:35, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Filter 1030 — Pattern modified

Last changed at 02:40, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Filter 1111 (new) — Actions: none; Flags: enabled,public; Pattern modified

Last changed at 02:47, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Filter 1085 — Actions: none

Last changed at 20:16, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Filter 869 — Pattern modified

Last changed at 07:39, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Filter 1014 — Pattern modified

Last changed at 23:08, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Filter 1110 (new) — Actions: disallow; Flags: enabled,private; Pattern modified

Last changed at 16:05, 19 January 2021 (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.


Click here to start a new discussion thread


Wikileaks filter (#1034) is misleading[edit]

I believe that the Wikileaks filter is misleading. The description at Special:Tags says "This edit added a deprecated source. Deprecated sources are not usually appropriate for Wikipedia articles" however Wikileaks is not a deprecated source (it's classified as generally unreliable and the consensus is that "It may be appropriate to cite a document from WikiLeaks as a primary source, but only if it is discussed by a reliable source"). Due to the tag wording users who see edits tagged by this filter revert such edits thinking it's a deprecated source.

Please note that we already have a filter for true deprecated sources. As far as I can tell there is no tag for unreliable sources - as many of them have certain legitimate uses - so the wikileaks filter should be deactivated for now. I'm not against marking generally unreliable sources but it should be a community decision and it should be applied to all of them rather than selectively. Alaexis¿question? 21:59, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

It is possible to have a filter for a particular non deprecated source. An RfC found consensus to warn for adding Facebook, for example. Not sure about Wikileaks. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:32, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
It's certainly possible but having read all posts on Wikileaks at WP:RSP (there are 13 of them) I haven't found any discussion, let alone consensus on edit filters. Alaexis¿question? 07:21, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Filter created by JzG so he can probably answer your question better, but I’m acutely aware he’s taking a semi-wikibreak atm. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:24, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
I understand that he must have got an alert when you mentioned him? Let's at least fix the factually incorrect wording (Wikileaks is not deprecated) and then discuss the merits of tagging such edits. Alaexis¿question? 07:34, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
@ProcrastinatingReader: as we are still waiting for JzG's response, could you fix the incorrect wording? Alaexis¿question? 13:31, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Only an admin can edit the interface page for the warning. But I don’t believe mediawiki:Abusefilter-warning-WikiLeaks says it’s deprecated, simply that it’s generally unreliable, which appears to be its RSP classification? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 08:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought you had the permissions to do it. You are right, but I was referring to the small tags that appear next to edits (example) where the word "deprecated" does appear. Alaexis¿question? 06:56, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Can someone fix the wording or explain why it shouldn't be changed? It seems like a matter of a few minutes. Alaexis¿question? 09:45, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Edit filter 1,043 edit request: add pronouns and abbreviations[edit]

  • Change facebook|twitter|instagram| to facebook|fb|twitter|instagram|ig|
  • Change me|us to me|us|him|her|them
  • Optionally, enable for userspace (maybe not user talk though) as it's already filtering by auto-confirmed, so this could catch some U5-type promo, if that's desirable for this filter. Draft might also be viable, but possibly unnecessary. Excluding draft, this would be page_namespace == 0 to equals_to_any(page_namespace, 0, 2).

Perryprog (talk) 22:00, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

One other abbreviation that could be helpful might be "insta".

I'm also wondering if this filter could be generalized a little bit more, although that could, of course, lead to more false positives. Maybe something like checking for added text of one of the sites and a separate check for anything that looks like a social media handle, probably in the same line. This could potentially catch a wider range of situations like "Their insta: @foobar". (I'm not totally sure what the idiomatic way of implementing that would be, though.) Perryprog (talk) 22:12, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

  • I added the abbreviations. The filter already catches him/her/them (though it may not be obvious from the code) as you can see at Special:AbuseLog/28525256. Also this sort of request should go to WP:EFR. Thanks! CrowCaw 22:18, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
    • To the other items mentioned, I didn't add userspace as we do allow some leeway to users for that kind of thing. If their user page consists of *only* social media then NPP should catch it, but if its a passing line in a page full of wikipedia related stuff then it typically gets a pass. Similarly we allow limited social media listings in articles under certain conditions so an outright block of handles would be implementing a policy that doesn't exist. CrowCaw 22:24, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
      • Fair enough, the net certainly seems wide enough as it is. Perryprog (talk) 22:56, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Crow, I might be wrong because I'm pretty tired, but I believe the filter currently doesn't catch things like "follow them on @foobar at ig"; the example you linked only worked due to an alteration that looks for something similar to a handle (one word, maybe with an @)—this alteration still needs a directly preceding verb, so stuff it matches looks like "follow @foobar on instagram" and not "follow them on @foobar at instagram".

      Sorry for posting this in the wrong place; I was under the impression that EFR was for requesting new filters—its header only seems to mention requesting new filters, so it wasn't very obvious where to post this. Perryprog (talk) 22:54, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Yes it would not catch the extended version as you mentioned. It should be easy enough to have it catch "follow <pronoun> on/at @handle" with a quick variable add. It seems like that should be enough without needing the platform name in that case as it is clearly a social media spam at that point. CrowCaw 23:05, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Good point—that would also lead to a less convoluted regex. I could possibly look into rewriting it with that in mind (likely not today though), assuming you or someone else aren't already planning to. Also, the non-talk page CSS really makes this indentation funky :(. Perryprog (talk) 23:14, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I've made the change to 1043, added the handle text check. CrowCaw 23:16, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

T242821 may be of interest[edit]

Related to some recent discussions about the bar for entry for EFH, phab:T242821 proposes splitting the right to use the testing interface to be separate from the right to view private filters. --DannyS712 (talk) 22:15, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Filter 733[edit]

I was wondering if filter 733 could be set to disallow. This is because there's not really any reason for a new user to create a page in someone else's userspace, and also to stop the LTA Evlekis who attacks like that all the time. It might also be helpful for this to include the user talk namespace. Pahunkat (talk) 21:25, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Filer to detect new additions to "Notable people" sections[edit]

See this AN/I thread for context. --C o r t e x 💬talk 22:53, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

@Cortex128: A bit busy now, but see 1111 (hist · log). Just monitoring all redlinks right now. Any suggestion from anyone about narrowing it down? It looks to be too spammy to monitor the log. Also @DannyS712 and MusikAnimal: that's not showing up on the slow filters dashboard, is it? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 02:24, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
@Suffusion of Yellow: No hits in the Slow Filters Dashboard so far, but I agree the implementation looks expensive. I'm not sure how effective this will be, to be frank. We'll at least need to check for "Notable people" or something in the entire wikitext, as adding red links by itself is a super common newbie thing to do. Also several examples from the AN/I thread did not involve links at all. Perhaps we should instead look for something like ^\*\s*(?:\[\[)?\w+ \w+ since they're usually bulleted items followed by a first and last name. MusikAnimal talk 02:53, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
@MusikAnimal: Thanks for checking. See also 1112 (hist · log), which is also overly broad in its own way, but I'll look for patterns in the log tomorrow. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 03:47, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
@MusikAnimal and Suffusion of Yellow: With no objection to enhancing effectiveness, at the moment this filter actually seems to have a reasonable heat:light ratio for crap edits. My back of the envelope observation is well over 1/4 have been (and should have been) reverted at first sight. Although once this TikTok shenanigans dies down, the cost:benefit balance may very well tip in a different direction... --Jack Frost (talk) 03:51, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Set filter 1112 to warn, temporarily?[edit]

This is flooding in at an absurd rate. The filter is not perfect, but it should hopefully be only a few days before the TikTok kids move on to the Nose Bean Challenge or whatever. Should there a be custom warning? On the one hand there will be some innocent users who don't know about WP:N etc.. On the other, I don't want to tell people how to avoid the filter. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:35, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

In my experience, usually, the people adding non-notable people to an article are not trying to neutrally add links to provide a more thorough list, but are trying to add a particular person to an article. If this is also generally true, I doubt linking them to WP:N or telling them the rules for adding links will be of much positive help to them. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:18, 24 January 2021 (UTC)