Wikipedia:Edit filter noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Welcome to the edit filter noticeboard
Filter 773 — Flags: enabled
Last changed at 20:49, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Filter 384 — Pattern modified

Last changed at 16:49, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Filter 937 (new) — Actions: tag; Flags: enabled; Pattern modified

Last changed at 23:56, 12 October 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 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.

Custom warning for 930

Recently, Crow made filter 930 (prevents new users from indexing pages in userspace), which I requested. Crow said that a custom message should be created for the filter, as they could not make it since they are not an admin, so they cannot make pages in the MediaWiki namespace. It has been a few days since the filter was created, but there is still no custom warning for the filter, so I am requesting an admin make a custom warning. SemiHypercube 12:47, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

@SemiHypercube: what would you like it to say?

Here is a template: (see parameters at Template:Edit filter warning)

xaosflux Talk 13:06, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
@Xaosflux: Probably something along the lines of "since it is often used to get high search rankings for promotional pages, which is against policy, page indexing is disallowed for new users" or something similar. SemiHypercube 15:51, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
@MusikAnimal: thanks for disabling blocking on this. @Crow: please follow up here. This is another example of why the EF guidelines include Except in urgent situations, new edit filters must not be set to disallow without thorough testing and a notice at the noticeboard to give other edit filter managers and the community time to review the filter for technical accuracy and necessity.xaosflux Talk 18:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Sure thing. I do think disallowing for newbies is appropriate (based on what we've seen so far), but we shouldn't do it without an informative message. I'm not convinced everyone means harm, for instance Special:AbuseLog/22002948 where they tried to add the INDEX magic word, but also added {{advertisement}} to the top. I don't know why... maybe they're just trying to be transparent, but anyway it doesn't seem that malicious.
In my opinion, all draft articles in the userspace should be prohibited from being indexed. That's definitely for a much broader discussion, though. MusikAnimal talk 19:04, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
I expect that sometimes it's just cargo cult editing — they saw the magic word on another page and assumed it must have some purpose. At least, that's the only I reason I can think of why they sometimes add __NEWSECTIONLINK__ and other magic words along with it. The warning message should probably tell them what exactly to remove in case they have no idea they are indexing the page in the first place.
And yeah, I agree that this should be disallowed (silently by the software, like we already do for draftspace) for all users. Search my recent deleted userspace contribs for "G10" and look at how long some of those pages lasted. I don't think any were indexed, but they could have been and probably no one would have noticed. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:44, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • MusikAnimal pointed me here after an unrelated discussion in the admins IRC channel. I'd support disallowing indexing of userpages by users with less than 100 edits. Would also be fine making it extended confirmed. Don't have a strong preference here, just commenting that I think there is general support for. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:31, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
    @TonyBallioni: something like that should be proposed at VP; and while it is easy to filter on "_INDEX_" if they use a template, etc - it won't be perfect but should catch the egregious uses (can easily catch {{index}} as well). — xaosflux Talk 15:03, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Hello sorry for my absence, some local issues have kept me tied up in RL. @Xaosflux: point taken on the premature disallow, that was indeed unnecessary as being non-urgent. Perhaps I need to step back a bit and not look at such situations so microscopically. In any case you are completely correct. Regarding the custom warning, I think this thread has it under control so I will withdraw. CrowCaw 16:45, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
It's been a while, could anyone make a custom warning and set this back to disallow? SemiHypercube 21:33, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
@SemiHypercube: this would be in effect a form of semi-protection across an entire namesapce - was there a discussion that this restricted is supported by the community in general you can point to? — xaosflux Talk 23:59, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
@Xaosflux: Suggestions for forcing noindexing in the user namespace came up in the discussion of this (failed) proposal. Also, this isn't really a form of semi-protection across an entire namespace. That's a different filter. SemiHypercube 12:23, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
@SemiHypercube: I think this may be a good idea, however you will need to gather more support than just at this page to move this to disallow. I suggest WP:VPPR. — xaosflux Talk 12:57, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

So, @Xaosflux:, I took your suggestion and, lo and behold, there is clear consensus that allowing search engine indexing of userpages should be restricted to extended confirmed users, not even just confirmed users. SemiHypercube 16:23, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

@SemiHypercube: thanks for the note, will make some tweaks to this to get it going, do you have some good verbiage to put in the denial banner? — xaosflux Talk 16:42, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
@Xaosflux: The wording could probably be something along the lines of "This edit has been prevented because you have tried to allow a user page to be indexed by search engines. Since this is often used to get high search rankings for promotional pages, which is against policy, page indexing is disallowed for users whose accounts are less than 30 days old or have less than 500 edits." Again, you can probably change the wording, it was hard for me to put the idea into words. SemiHypercube 16:51, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
I've updated the documentation at Wikipedia:Controlling_search_engine_indexing#INDEX_magic_word to reflect the new restriction. — xaosflux Talk 16:58, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

930 getting ready to move to disallow

Special:AbuseFilter/930 has been updated for the new parameters, at least 1 day hold (and needing a custom deny message) before moving to disallow to look for FP's. Pings to prior filter editors: @Crow:, @MusikAnimal:. — xaosflux Talk 16:52, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Regarding custom message, something like:
would seem good. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:57, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
I've started MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning-noindexuser, but I don't love it. — xaosflux Talk 17:06, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
I was looking through the filter hits, and a large portion, as you'd expect, is spammers trying to spam with G11 stuff; I'm thinking that another sentence with strong message against promotion, perhaps explaining that spam is likely to simply be deleted, may be warranted. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:18, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Note that using Wikipedia for advertising may result in deletion of the pages and revocation of your editing privileges? Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:23, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Here is current:

I'm pretty open to it having more in it. — xaosflux Talk 17:22, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

930 moved to disallow

Disallow has been enabled, revert and let me know if any issues. @SemiHypercube::  Done. — xaosflux Talk 20:55, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Removed index checking from Special:Abusefilter/354 as it collides. — xaosflux Talk 21:20, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Also disabled colliding filter Special:AbuseFilter/840. — xaosflux Talk 21:21, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
@Xaosflux: Um...isn't 840 supposed to be a tracking filter? If it was just set so that it only considered x-con users and other users exempt from 930, that would be better. (the whole "filter 840 is for tracking was why I proposed this whole filter in the first place) SemiHypercube 21:25, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
@SemiHypercube: OK I re-enabled 840, setting it to track for EC use. We don't really need to track sysop/bot use. — xaosflux Talk 21:33, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
@Xaosflux: Thanks. Turns out you were the user who told me that filter 840 was for tracking. SemiHypercube 21:35, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
@Xaosflux: (ec) Looks good. But, anticipating future sneakiness, perhaps the filter(s) should look for \{\{\s*index\s*[|}], instead of just {{index}}? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:51, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
@Suffusion of Yellow: can you show me an example of an edit where this occurred? — xaosflux Talk 22:36, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
@Xaosflux: Well, all I can find is the not-at-all spammy user pages of Phil Boswell and Problemsmith, which use {{INDEX|visible=yes}}, and the WTF of a page that is User talk:hopiakuta/Archive 7, which uses used {{ index }}. So I guess it's not a huge problem after all, but I figure spammers will eventually try to find a way around this. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:58, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
@Suffusion of Yellow: I changed it to just {{index we don't need to care what (if any) parameter is used I guess. — xaosflux Talk 00:00, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
And I dont expect any of these on userspace anyway. — xaosflux Talk 00:01, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
@Xaosflux: Thanks. I'll let you know if I notice anyone getting around this. And if too many good-faith cargo-cultists show up at WP:EF/FP/R I'll see if I can improve the warning. I still can't figure why so many hits also include __NEWSECTIONLINK__ or __FORCETOC__. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 04:17, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Refine filter AbuseFilter/909

Based on recent BLP vandalism at Martin Green (musician) and Willie Green, could someone with the bit see about refining this filter? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:27, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Tweaked. CrowCaw 15:35, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Thank ya both kindly! Ravensfire (talk) 15:50, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Special:AbuseFilter/684 set to disallow temporarily

I've re-used Special:AbuseFilter/684 ("temporary vandalism") and set it to disallow - very narrow, tested at 773, and I'm watching the logs - TNT 💖 09:24, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

164 needs some polishing

Edit filter 164 is fairly outdated, and could use some improvements. I am not the most familiar with maintenance templates and their syntax, and would like someone familiar with AfC templates etc. to make suggestions. I have an idea myself: the filter should check for escaped wikilinks to categories (which are common at drafts). I also have a question – since there are many undetected candidates for history merging, is checking all articles that currently exist necessary? wumbolo ^^^ 12:13, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Please review 937

Please review 937. This is a very simple filter intended to patrol for WP:CHUTIYA long term abuse. Guy (Help!) 06:42, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

As a logging filter it seems fine, not sure how popular of a term Chutia is, if there are many legit uses adding conditions about the editor may help. — xaosflux Talk 11:44, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Very few, as far as I can tell. Guy (Help!) 23:54, 12 October 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