MediaWiki talk:Titleblacklist

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
The following instructions were copied from mw:Extension:Title Blacklist.

The title blacklist is maintained as a system message MediaWiki:Titleblacklist.

This page consists of regular expressions, each on a separate line. For example:

Foo <autoconfirmed|noedit|errmsg=blacklisted-testpage> 
Bar #No one should create article about it

There is no need to use "^" at the beginning and "$" at the end; these are added automatically.

Each entry may also contain optional attributes, enclosed in <> and divided by |

  • autoconfirmed — only non-autoconfirmed users are unable to create/upload/move such pages
  • noedit — users are also unable to edit this article
  • casesensitive — don't ignore case when checking title for being blacklisted
  • errmsg — the name of the message that should be displayed instead of standard

When the action is blocked, one of the following messages is displayed together with the filter row (as $1): titleblacklist-forbidden-edit, titleblacklist-forbidden-move, titleblacklist-forbidden-new-account or titleblacklist-forbidden-upload. Generic filenames have their own custom error message, MediaWiki:Titleblacklist-custom-imagename.

There is also MediaWiki:Titlewhitelist and a global title blacklist.

Only administrators, page movers and template editors can override this list on all actions. Account creators can override this list on account creations only.

CARIFORUM-UK Economic Partnership Agreement[edit]

Hi! I'm trying to move the clumsily-named page UK-CARIFORUM (Trade Block)economic partnership to CARIFORUM-UK Economic Partnership Agreement but am unable as the title is apparently on the Titleblacklist. Could anyone help? Many thanks, Gazamp (talk) 18:32, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

It appears the first-mentioned page has been moved to draft-space so this request is moot. Stifle (talk) 13:56, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Problem with Editor's user pages[edit]

Hello, Titleblacklist watchers,

Right now, new editor User:Love vashikaran specialist aghori baba can not edit their own user and user talk page because of a title blacklist for "*vashikaran.* # Indian astrology/magic advertising". Can I remove this element from the Titleblacklist, as long as this editor is active? It seems unfair that they can't make use of their own user pages and other editors can not leave messages for them. Liz Read! Talk! 02:40, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Okay, now I'm confused as a regular editor has now left another message on this editor's user talk page. I don't think I understand how this title blacklist works as I'm sure I saw a pink message saying only admins and template editors could edit the page. Liz Read! Talk! 02:49, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
@Liz: you could add that specific user: page to the MediaWiki:Titlewhitelist instead of removing the entire pattern here. I haven't gone through all the logic to see if there is a bypass on user_talk for that right now, or if the namespace isn't working yet. — xaosflux Talk 03:21, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
@Liz: OK - so it looks like that pattern is only protected against creation, not editing (our local message is a bit wrong) - the talk page works because a sysop created it. I've created the userpage and usersandbox - so this will take care of the basic stuff. If they will need to create other subpages this will come up again, so you can go the whitelist route for the more specific pattern. — xaosflux Talk 03:29, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
I made the warning (MediaWiki:Titleblacklist-warning) a bit more broad as well. — xaosflux Talk 03:31, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  • That user is blocked as an LTA (and the reason the phrase appears in the TBL). Basically spamming for love sorcery cross-wiki... CrowCaw 22:42, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
Well, I guess that takes care of that! "Love sorcery", huh? That is more interesting that our typical DJ & Marketing spammers.
Thank you, Xaosflux and Crow for responding to my query. Liz Read! Talk! 01:13, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 26 June 2019[edit]

Please replace the following lines:

# The Education Program namespace is deprecated
Education Program:.*

...with the following...

# The Education Program namespace is deprecated
Education Program:.* <errmsg=Titleblacklist-Education-Program-namespace>

...In addition, please move Draft:MediaWiki:Titleblacklist-Education-Program-namespace to MediaWiki:Titleblacklist-Education-Program-namespace (without leaving a redirect). This should make an edit notice appear when someone attempts to create a page in the "Education Program:" namespace. Thanks! Steel1943 (talk) 16:31, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

 Donexaosflux Talk 16:34, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 22 August 2019[edit]

At RfD, we came across a redirect containing a word joiner (U+2060). The redirect is Fernando Zor⁠⁠⁠⁠ ending with four copies of the word joiner. Since this non-printing character isn't on the blacklist, I request that it be added under the "OTHER UNDESIRABLE CHARACTERS" section, along with the many other non-printing characters that are not yet on the blacklist; go through b:Unicode/Character reference to find them all. (Enter "%E2%81%A0" into your URL bar to go to a title with a word joiner; the same technique works with all non-printing characters, via their UTF-8 codepoint.) –LaundryPizza03 (d) 03:52, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

  • P.S. I think this will require a custom warning message. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 03:54, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Not done as to the immediate edit request, discussion can certainly continue below, including dealing with the need to build any custom messages in support. — xaosflux Talk 13:42, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Related discussion on WP:SALT[edit]

I started a discussion on when / how the Title Blacklist should be used; since the closest relevant policy is WP:SALT, and since the protection policy page's talk seems likely to be far more trafficked than this one, I put the discussion there even though it's obviously relevant here as well. Adding a notice here so people who actually use the Title Blacklist system can weigh in - I think we need at least a few sentences in WP:SALT (or somewhere) elaborating on what the title blacklist system is for, since currently I couldn't find anything. (Or, if there are instructions somewhere, it needs to link to them.) --Aquillion (talk) 07:32, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Request to prevent "Wikidata" titles from being created[edit]

Per the discussion found at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 November 5#Sandra Lerner (Q7549), there seems to rough consensus to prevent "Wikidata-style" titles from being created, specifically in makeshift disambiguators in titles. I have an idea of how to accomplish that in this blacklist, but fear there may be a few false positives that appear every so often. Here is my idea:

  • Prevent the creation of titles with any of the 4 following character strings:
  • (Q[number]
  • (q[number]
  • (P[number]
  • (p[number]

Steel1943 (talk) 18:28, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

@Tavix, BDD, Reyk, Thryduulf, Cryptic, Deb, RebeccaGreen, Tagishsimon, Finnusertop, Gidonb, VQuakr, Zakhx150, Ritchie333, and Black Falcon: Ping participants/closed of aforementioned discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 18:34, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
@ComplexRational and Xezbeth: Ping more participants. Steel1943 (talk) 18:40, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Also, see Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Redirects with database (e.g. Wikidata) identifiers and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 November 1#Aisa Bint Ahmad (Q30904322). Steel1943 (talk) 18:37, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
    • Sounds all right to me, but then I don't really understand why they were being created in the first place. Deb (talk) 18:46, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
      • @Deb: a bot was creating redlinks to missing articles based on Wikidata. If the title here was already in use (or ambiguous with other redlinks?) it added the Q number as a disambiguator to create a unique title. Thryduulf (talk) 19:28, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
        • So, user:ListeriaBot creates lists of redlinks, such as mine at User:Lee Vilenski/cue sports red lists. If an article already exists under that name, it uses the wikidata code to disambiguate. (See the entry for Billy Kelly for example). I would always create with a regular disambiguation, but a new user may just click the link to create. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 09:49, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support I think it's a good idea to prevent these somehow, but with the caveat that I don't know how such blacklists work. There was also an issue raised that some French submarines have a Q number as part of their designation; these should not be blacklisted. Those Q numbers are significantly shorter than the wikidata garbage though. Reyk YO! 19:26, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose From the point of view of Women in Red, as I understand it, we want redlinks created, with Q numbers if another identical name with a different Q number already exists. A bot to delete redirects from that name plus Q number, once an article has been created, is what is needed from our point of view. RebeccaGreen (talk) 20:51, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
    • @RebeccaGreen: I'm confused, and I'm not sure if you understand the point of the blacklist when you say "...we want redlinks created". The blacklist doesn't prevent redlinks from being created or typed out; it prevents content (such as an article or a redirect) being created at that title. Steel1943 (talk) 21:19, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
    • Additionally, we can configure it here so that - even if ListeriaBot continues to create redlinks to these bad titles - when someone tries to create a page at that title, it'll show a message like "Please don't create your article at this title, give it a meaningful disambiguator like '(Nigerian politician)' instead of '(Q424242)'". —Cryptic 23:25, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Well, that might work. We certainly want the redlinks, and we want it to be as easy as possible for all editors, new and experienced, to create articles at those redlinks. RebeccaGreen (talk) 01:34, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm a bit concerned about the potential for false positives. I'd suggest maybe considering an edit filter at first - first to gauge the extent of the problem, and secondly to add a warning. If this must be implemented in the blacklist, I'd suggest the number is at least n digits long, as is likely for most red-linked Wikidata items, and as specific as possible to the problem. So that would be something like \s\([PQ]\d{4,}\)$ I don't see any current data for P-numbered items in relation to either bad titles or existing articles (false positives), and I don't see any bad titles with lower case identifiers - maybe someone could shed light on that. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:53, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
    • There's plenty of current false positives for (Q###) - all the French subs at quarry:query/39909, plus a handful more if we don't enforce the closing ). Current query that includes property numbers, lowercase q/p, and possibly-missing close paren is at quarry:query/40085. There's a lot in the latter - plenty of British ships, at a glance. I don't have time right now for a thorough analysis, but it looks like setting a minimum of five digits will cull most or all of the false positives (it does for uppercase-Q), and a minimum of six digits should suffice for almost all of the bad titles we've seen in the wild. —Cryptic 23:25, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
      There's exactly four pages left matching \([qQpP][0-9]{5,}: User:Javert2113/Mollie King (Q16930213), User:Loulabelle/Margaret Verrall (Q18576692), User:SusunW/Anna Maria Niemeyer (Q9616311), and User:Teblick/Lola Lane (Q1646159). None are false positives, though I expect we'd want to allow creations in at least User, File:, and their talk namespaces anyway. —Cryptic 23:56, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
  • @Steel1943: can we include the parenthesis in the query? Seems like that would cut down on false positives. Also, why can't we just block the bot? VQuakr (talk) 23:33, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
    • @VQuakr: Yes, the left paren would/should be part of it, and please see elsewhere in this discussion regarding false positives, specifically about how many numbers minimum should be in the string to avoid false positives. And in regards to the bot, that may be more of a question for whether maintains the bot or approved the bot (I'm not even sure what this bot is); the editor in this discussion, RebeccaGreen, may at least know the name of the bot. Steel1943 (talk) 15:51, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
@Cryptic: this bot is creating redlinks in talk page lists, not actual articles/redirects, correct? Is the actual creation of the articles/redirects with bad titles being done by a human? If so, blacklisting seems like a blunt tool to fix a behavioral problem. VQuakr (talk) 01:05, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
Yes, by many different humans. Some of them too inexperienced to know better; some of them very experienced, who don't notice that they're doing it (because the redlinks are piped to hide the disambiguators, like Maria Gianni). Fixing the humans' behavior isn't really practical. Fixing the bot's behavior would be ideal, but maybe not practical either. The blacklist is a much better fit, for many reasons, than a new speedy deletion criterion; my interest with this issue ends at preventing the creation of the latter. —Cryptic 01:31, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
It seems to me we can program a bot to avoid any string that we can blacklist? VQuakr (talk) 06:18, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – it's a good idea, seeing as there is consensus to delete these redirects but no consensus to create a new CSD. However, as zzuuzz and Cryptic mention, there needs to be a way to ensure that the blacklist query does not catch false positives. I'm pretty sure that (Q[number] (with at least 5 or 6 digits) will not catch any false positives (as one of the titles at the RfD was Q7549). If necessary, I'd support the creation of an edit filter for probable cases (i.e. when a Wikidata ID shorter than 5 digits could plausibly mean something else) and adding cases that are almost indubitably IDs to the blacklist. Also, is it necessary to include lowercase (will not be created by bots) or P numbers (which are at most 4 digits), which are both less likely creations and offer more false positives? ComplexRational (talk) 23:39, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
    • I certainly don't see any need to include anything other than capital Q numbers in this filter, there is no evidence of any problematic titles in other ranges. Thryduulf (talk) 13:11, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Obvious support. scope_creepTalk 02:15, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. Separately from the ListeriaBot issue, there are over 100 articles whose titles begin with "Q1" (many of them New York City bus lines) and probably many others with Q and other digits, or where the Q and digits are not at the start of the title. Do we really want to blacklist all of these, merely to get around a problem that is easily handled by a combination of user education and page moves when a problematic title is created? —David Eppstein (talk) 05:05, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
    • @David Eppstein: Note the left paren "(" at the beginning of the proposed string. This blacklist entry wouldn't be for "Q#" but rather "(Q#" (with # representing a number.) Steel1943 (talk) 05:41, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
      • @Steel1943: I can't figure out how to persuade the advanced search feature to search for page titles containing "(P" or "(Q" with the open paren. However, I see no evidence above that anyone else has figured it out either, nor that they have made any efforts to determine how many articles would be affected by such a filter. I would like to see such efforts made, rather than just assuming it can't happen and finding out later. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:47, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
        • There are two database queries above (Q, PQ), along with some analysis, which show existing articles. I have also made a proposal above (as modified) looking a bit different to that originally made by Steel1943, which is any title which ends with: a space character, followed by opening parenthesis, then a capital Q, then five or more numbers, and ending with a closing parenthesis. This can be summarised as \s\(Q\d{5,}\)$ <casesensitive>, plus the code required to restrict only in the main namespace (or wherever else), plus a custom warning. I would indeed prefer the bot/linking issue to be tackled, but in terms of false positives this version doesn't seem too bad. -- zzuuzz (talk) 08:33, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
  • oppose 1) for reasons of false positives 2) because the "problem" is trivial enough both in the quantity of instances, and the nature of the cure, to be dealt with as it arises 3) because it erects yet another confusing barrier for exactly the sort of newbies who are lulled by WiR's Listeria redlists into creating articles with such titles. Blythe assurances that we can supply some sort of interstitial encouraging the user to concoct a more appropriate disambiguator which will be understood by the newbie amidst the world-salad of new terms and concepts necessary to navigate a wikipedia edit for the first time is wishful thinking, or at least, is not concerned about those newbies who will give up at that hurdle. It's also, may I say, a fairly obnoxious direction to suggest for Wikipedia, which is built on being permissive rather that tightly constrained by half-baked logic that prevent users from doing things the rule framers had never considered; a "let's prevent users from doing this" ethos is straightforwardly antithetical to the wikipedia I understand. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:46, 16 November 2019 (UTC) --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:46, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Tagishimon. I hadn't considered it from that perspective before, but it is absolutely correct that the way to fix this is not by erecting barriers to new contributors. Thryduulf (talk) 12:07, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Edit filter: I've set up edit filter 1012 (hist · log). It does nothing but log page creations with these (Qxxx) titles. In the future it could tag entries (or even display a custom message) if that's useful. If you have any suggestions for the filter you could drop me a direct ping. -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:42, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose blacklist, support edit filter to log or tag these. I agree with Tagishsimon's point about not putting up more barriers to entry, but I think that having an edit filter that finds these so they can be handled appropriately by more experienced editors looks like a useful thing to do. Additionally, the false positive issue is much less of a concern when doing things this way. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:11, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. I have struck my non-Q options per the above. Steel1943 (talk) 01:05, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Could we just fix the bot? It feels strange that this can be opposed on the basis that a bot is creating links we don't want. --BDD (talk) 14:53, 18 November 2019 (UTC)