Wikipedia:Edit filter noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Welcome to the edit filter noticeboard
Filter 864 — Actions: disallow
Last changed at 22:56, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Filter 898 (new) — Actions: none; Flags: enabled; Pattern modified

Last changed at 06:44, 17 January 2018 (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 WP:Edit filter/Requested. If you would like to report a false positive, please post at WP: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 188 enabled filters and 19 stale filters with no hits in the past 30 days (Purge). See also the edit filter graphs

Article age variable

Hi. On edit filters, is there some way to use the article's age as a variable? I'm not only talking about new page creation; suppose that for some reason, you wanted to restrict your filter to articles less than an hour (or 3,600 seconds) old. I don't see any such variable listed on the documentation page, but could there be a work-around of some sort? Just wondering. Thank you. Biblio (talk) 17:15, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

@Biblioworm: There's an edit filter noticeboard that I would guess has the people to answer that question. --Izno (talk) 17:41, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi. I was just wondering if there's some way to use an article's age as a variable. Suppose, for instance, that you wanted to restrict your filter to articles less than an hour (or 3,600 seconds) old, or to articles older than a month. The documentation page doesn't really address that, but is there some way to do this? Thank you. Biblio (talk) 18:54, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

@Biblioworm: Sorry no, however if you wanted to hardcode it for a specific time you could hit most pages by examining the article_articleid as it is an integer and newer pages get a higher number. — xaosflux Talk 19:45, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Eg pick a page made a month ago, then if the article id is less than it, it is older than that - unfortunately this is not dynamic, but you could use it to say include/exclude all pages made before 2017 for example (and could update the comparison value in the future to move it forward). — xaosflux Talk 19:53, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Desysopping edit filter managers under a cloud

Following a January 2016 discussion, if the Arbitration Committee desysop an admin who has self-granted edit filter manager rights then the clerks will leave a note here (EFN) for review. I've just request that 'crats do the same if they desysop someone under a cloud who has self-granted the EFM permission. Comments about this request should probably be left at WP:BN rather than here.

The January 2016 discussion was not formally closed, but there was consensus against automatically removing the right from all desysopped admins, but a review did find favour explicitly and implicitly. I don't see a need to revist that, but if anyone else does then here or Wikipedia talk:Edit Filter is the place to do so (link from whichever venue you don't choose).

AFAICR no such review has yet needed to take place, Salvidrim! would have been the first had he not resigned his bit before the arbcom case with a passing desysop remedy closed. Following a discussion between him and xaosflux at user talk:Salvidrim! the EFM permission was replaced with EFH, negating the need for a review here. Thryduulf (talk) 12:29, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Filter Descriptions in messages

A discussion is open at Wikipedia_talk:Edit_filter#Variable_in_disallowed_message regarding the possible addition of filter names to the disallow warning (MediaWiki:Abusefilter-disallowed). — xaosflux Talk 01:00, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Possible Self-Published Sources

@Crow, JzG, and Jo-Jo Eumerus: Should we be exempting bots from Special:AbuseFilter/894? I see AvicBot is regularly showing up in the logs. MusikAnimal talk 15:36, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

To me that sounds more like a flaw in the filter; I don't think that the edits in question should be caught by the filter at all, seeing as they aren't changes that add a link to a self-published source. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:40, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
What Jo-Jo said. Guy (Help!) 16:38, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
You can use added_links but this is expensive, so first check added_lines to wean out more edits. See Special:AbuseFilter/892 for an example. Leaving it to Crow or other authors to fix, as I'm not sure what the URLs should be. In the meantime I have fixed the double-redirects that AvicBot was trying to make. MusikAnimal talk 16:49, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Bots generally aren't adding anything that wasn't there before, so excluding them might be worthwhile, though on the flip side it does alert us to such a situation that might not have been seen without that edit. This particular case was just due to a page move, so unless a title-war breaks out, this specific case is unlikely to recur. I suspect that parsing the username for bot$ should catch all bots since we don't let user accounts end in "bot". @MusikAnimal: Is user_name sufficiently cheap as an excluding condition, or does that bring in the SQL engine? CrowCaw 17:33, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm not certain, but checking user_groups is the more common way to do this and is also cheap. Here we only care about references though, right? In that case I would recommend using added_links (in the same way as 892). Otherwise any mention of these sites will trigger the filter, which I think would constitute a false positive MusikAnimal talk 17:40, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Bot usergroup excluded. Hoping to avoid using added_links for cost... maybe changing the added_lines to be the entire link with http?:// would accomplish the same thing and avoid firing just on a mention of the company? CrowCaw 17:59, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
added_links is expensive, but it's the only sure-fire way to avoid the false positives with merely mentioning the source, barring some very complicated regex that is also not-so-cheap. If you're first checking added_lines you're cancelling out the vast majority of edits, and hence the expense part is only happening when necessary, so I think it is acceptable in that case. MusikAnimal talk 18:32, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Sounds good! CrowCaw 19:01, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Tried that and when testing against recent non-bot hits, it looks like a lot of these often have the Link be, with the SPS listed only as the publisher in the ref tag, so many recent hits would slip through. For now I'm testing expanding the string to include the variable, e.g. "" --> "". Might need to Norm these to catch spaces, caps, etc... thoughts? CrowCaw 19:52, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Enabling warnings or tags for Filter 869?

Back in September, there was a discussion about this filter (the WP:DAILYMAIL filter) still being tested. Now, four months later, I wonder if we could make the filter do more than just log, so it's actually useful. PinkAmpersand proposed a warning template and I propose we use this template whenever someone adds a link to (not the other two since there was no consensus for it) and tag links to all three sites so people can easily see those edits in their watchlist. Opinions? Pinging @Ritchie333, Zzuuzz, and Xaosflux who participated in the last discussion. Regards SoWhy 10:21, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm all for it (see User:Ritchie333/Userbox Daily Mail, writing Enemies of the People, and recent comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cassie Sainsbury); however obviously I have very strong views on this, so I don't think my opinion should count for anything towards consensus. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:03, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
The consensus for the edit filter already exists in the linked to discussion, including the consensus for a warning when people try to add such sources ("An edit filter should be put in place going forward to warn editors attempting to use the Daily Mail as a reference.") Mine was more of a technical question, do you think the filter is tested enough to go live? Regards SoWhy 11:09, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
I've spot checked about 20 entries in the log, and they are all adding tabloid journalism to BLPs (most have been reverted) so I would say it's working as designed. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:44, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping, SoWhy. I've moved my proposed template to its own userspace page, User:PinkAmpersand/Daily Mail template, so others can improve upon it. (I've also made some tweaks to the original text, including boldfacing the most important sentence.) And, needless to say, count me as a !vote to set the filter to warn. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 15:40, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Proposed template (edit)
@PinkAmpersand: The filter also traps The Sun and the Daily Star. Are there any US papers that should be avoided? Breitbart? The National Enquirer? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:46, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Careful though, there is no consensus to warn against any links that are not Daily Mail, so while it makes sense to tag such edits, a warning should only be displayed for the Daily Mail additions (until there is consensus against the other sources). Regards SoWhy 16:49, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't think that's possible without rewriting the filter - it traps those three and (AFAIK) it's only technically possible to take one action against a match. I would, however, be utterly astonished if anyone who supported warning against the Mail in BLPs opposed it for The Sun and The Star. Indeed, my impression from reading the BLP and RS noticeboards is there is much more of a solid consensus to avoid The Sun like the plague for BLPs. Tom Morris put it better than I ever could here ;-) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:04, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Hmm... As I said, I don't disagree with you but considering the backlash of the DAILYMAIL RFC we should avoid warning people from linking to newspapers without a strong consensus to do so. If it's not possible to differentiate, I suggest we switch the filter to tag for now and you or someone else interested can start a new RFC for other questionable sources. Regards SoWhy 17:34, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
It seems to me the simplest solution is to fork the filter: one filter on tag-only for The Sun and the Star, another on tag-and-warn for the Mail. If consensus emerges to ban the other two, then the filters can be re-merged (or they can become three separate ones to allow for distinct warnings). — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 18:05, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Sounds good to me, if someone could do that (I won't touch that stuff with a ten-foot-pole). Objections anyone? Regards SoWhy 07:48, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Concurring with opinions presented. --QEDK () 08:09, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

() 869 now only covers Daily Mail, and 899 covers The Sun and Dailystar. We're still working on the warning for 869, I take it? What should the tag be? Maybe "Adding tabloids to BLPs"? It should be brief MusikAnimal talk 17:57, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

@MusikAnimal: I would suggest just Daily Mail link added. And if you have ideas for the warning template, feel free to be bold. QEDK's already made a few improvements. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 18:16, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
In anticipation of us doing the same for other tabliods, I think we should use a shared tag. This will make it easier for patrollers, as presumably we don't care which tabloid it is, right? MusikAnimal talk 18:23, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
I think it does matter. There's a consensus that the Daily Mail should (almost) never be linked. There isn't such a consensus for the other two tabloids. A Daily Mail addition is, IMHO, more demanding of immediate review, because that signals someone not just making a dubious claim, but someone who's just been notified of a consensus and has chosen to ignore it (rightly or wrongly). IMHO, that edit is more demanding of immediate review than is an edit linking to either of the other two tabloids. What about making two tags: one that would cover both 869 and 899, and another that would just cover 899? Also, someone should probably post a new RfC to RSN about the Star and Sun, to see if we can switch those over to tag-and-warn as well. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 20:29, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Sure, let's see what others have to say. Just remember tags associated with an edit are permanent, and any changes to the wording require a new tag, so it's important to get it right from the start MusikAnimal talk 02:51, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Agree with Pink&, one filter is essentially a byproduct of community consensus while the other is a conclusion drawn from the consensus itself. I don't think the warning split is as much of a problem although MA is correct about the tags ofc. --QEDK () 18:05, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Leaky filters

See 898 for a discussion with myself. Apart from 139, does anyone happen to know of any filters which need fixing? Κσυπ Cyp   17:36, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that variable is not really cheap :( I would avoid using it unless you have to, or do like we do in 139 and run another check before using it (see line 7) MusikAnimal talk 17:45, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
I meant that I tried fixing line 7 in 139, and was wondering if there are any other important filters with a corresponding line to fix. Κσυπ Cyp   20:40, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Ah I see. Sorry, I failed to read all of your self-discussion =p There are no other filters that I can think of off the top of my head that need this fix. Good catch, by the way!

One other picky complaint... I would discourage enabling any actions on test filters, unless you are doing it as part of a test. It's mainly the title that I think others may find misleading (e.g. why did a test filter disallow my edit?). There are some shared multi-purpose filters like 684, but in my opinion the life of a particular filter, much like a wiki page, should broadly be about the same subject/purpose. MusikAnimal talk 02:43, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the reply. It's ok, my self-discussion did get a bit long and rambling.

I've disabled my test filter, it didn't catch anything anyway. Κσυπ Cyp   15:38, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

"2017 source edit"

Edits such as this trip a tag (visualeditor-wikitext reading "2017 source edit" but it's 2018. It's not immediately obvious that this is for the 2017 wikitext editor, so is there a more intelligible way to word this? Maybe just omit "2017"? ―Justin (koavf)TCM 00:01, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

It's called the 2017 wikitext editor. It's also referred to as the "modern wikitext editor" or the "new wikitext editor". I'm not sure changing it is necessary at this time since the year doesn't refer to the time in which the edit is made, but rather the year in which the editor was built. Nihlus 00:10, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
I understand that but it's just not immediately clear. I'm suggesting that changing it to "modern wikitext editor" is a superior choice for this reason. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 23:32, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
But "modern wikitext editor" won't really make sense in the future if they come out with another build. "2017 source edit" is very specific about what it describes. I mean, I guess it could be changed to "2017 wikitext editor", but whatever it is, I feel the year is important. Nihlus 23:40, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
This tag is added by MediaWiki, not an edit filter. From Special:Tags you can edit the appearance and description, but I agree the "2017" is intentional, although a bit misleading. MusikAnimal talk 05:32, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Special:AbuseFilter/864 set to disallow

Lots of good hits recently, low risk of false positives - TNT 22:57, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from ""
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia :
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Wikipedia:Edit filter noticeboard"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA