Requested edit filters |
---|
This page is for people without the abusefilter-modify permission or people without sufficient knowledge about the coding involved to make requests to enact edit filters. Private filters should not be discussed in detail. Please use the mailing list if you have specific concerns or questions about the content of hidden filters. Please add a new section at the bottom using the following format: ==Filter name== *'''Task''': What is the filter supposed to do? To what pages and editors does it apply? *'''Reason''': Why is the filter needed? ~~~~ Bear the following in mind:
|
|
![]() Archives | |||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||||||||
Contents
- 1 Non-autoconfirmed user rapidly reverting edits
- 2 Refspammer
- 3 Preventing blank speedy contesting
- 4 Common Vandal Summaries filter
- 5 TNA to impact
- 6 Usernames containing "1488"
- 7 Southern Region
- 8 Visibility of filter 364
- 9 Date of Death
- 10 Kıbrıs Türk devletı ?
- 11 Extending filter 869 to cover all deprecated sources with consensus to implement edit filter warnings
Non-autoconfirmed user rapidly reverting edits
Just a note: it probably would be more useful if this filter, once triggered, would block further instances around the same time the bot reports to AIV for triggering the filter 5+ times instead of simply logging while allowing further disruption. It can take 20 minutes and over before derp revert vandals get blocked while a small army of patrollers must remain active to revert each edit, which appears suboptimal (i.e. see the still-ongoing 114.17.235.146). Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 02:52, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
- So disruption persisted for 34 minutes for this IP address alone. —PaleoNeonate – 02:58, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
- 29 minutes before 46.150.88.31 was stopped/blocked. —PaleoNeonate – 04:04, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Refspammer
- Task: Prevent additions of text referencing Maximiliano Korstanje, (including, e.g., Korstanje, M. E.), or thana\s?(tourism|capitalism) (case insensitive, obv).
- Reason: Years of self-promotion and refspamming by the subject (who also created an article on himself, now deleted and salted). Recent example: [1]. I'm pretty sure this would fit into some existing filter, but my RegEx-fu is not strong enough. Guy (Help!) 22:58, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Preventing blank speedy contesting
- Task: Disallow edits that consist of creating a talk page with the default
This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) --~~~~
text generated by the "contest this speedy deletion" button of every {{db-xxx}} template - Reason: New users frequently believe that just clicking the button is sufficient to contest a speedy deletion, just creating the default text without further information. The filter could prevent this by requiring the default text to be modified before saving (or by requiring that "(your reason here)" is not on the page). Regards SoWhy 08:15, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
- @SoWhy: Perhaps an edit intro might be worth trying first? Something along the lines of Template:Falsepositive/Editintro or Template:BLPN notice, but perhaps larger and more eye-catching. If you want to get really fancy, it could even be customized for each speedy category, unlike the filter warning. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 02:10, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- Good idea (which someone already had in 2011 but was never implemented). That said, I see no problem with having both an edit intro and a filter preventing empty contentions. Regards SoWhy 08:55, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- @SoWhy:
Done as 968 (hist · log) (log-only for now). My initial reaction was that a filter would be BITEy (WP:HNST etc.), but on second reflection deleting the page when they think they've contested it is even BITEier. Even if we don't implement the warning, the filter can be used to gather data on the effectiveness of the editintro, so can you hold off on implementing it until the filter has been confirmed as working, for a few days? The filter needs to account for all the Special:Prefixindex/Template:Hangon variations, and all the, um "creative" places the user might put their request, so may need more work. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 01:47, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Suffusion of Yellow: Thanks! Seems to work for this edit. I proposed the change to {{db-meta}} at Template talk:db-meta and I'm waiting for feedback anyway before editing a template that affects thousands of pages. Regards SoWhy 08:10, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
- @SoWhy: Looks like it was missing Template:Hangon preload A7. I've also temporarily set 1 (hist · log) to log all edits with a summary containing "Contested deletion", to see what others 968 (hist · log) might be missing. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:26, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
- Still only one hit. Filter 1 now just looking for "your reason here" instead, because there seems to something buggy with the summary check. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 16:51, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
- @SoWhy: Looks like it was missing Template:Hangon preload A7. I've also temporarily set 1 (hist · log) to log all edits with a summary containing "Contested deletion", to see what others 968 (hist · log) might be missing. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:26, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Suffusion of Yellow: Thanks! Seems to work for this edit. I proposed the change to {{db-meta}} at Template talk:db-meta and I'm waiting for feedback anyway before editing a template that affects thousands of pages. Regards SoWhy 08:10, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
- @SoWhy:
- Good idea (which someone already had in 2011 but was never implemented). That said, I see no problem with having both an edit intro and a filter preventing empty contentions. Regards SoWhy 08:55, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- @SoWhy: Perhaps an edit intro might be worth trying first? Something along the lines of Template:Falsepositive/Editintro or Template:BLPN notice, but perhaps larger and more eye-catching. If you want to get really fancy, it could even be customized for each speedy category, unlike the filter warning. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 02:10, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
@SoWhy: I've disabled the filter until we decide what to do. It's probably skipped over a few because of the edit summary bug, but that should be most of them. Looking through the hits, do you see anything that's not completely hopeless on the (deleted) pages? That is, would there be any point to a warning, other than to encourage the user to write a message that will be ignored anyway? I'm curious. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 01:43, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Common Vandal Summaries filter
Task: Log edit summaries according to I? ?(([Tt]ypo)? ?[Ff]ix(ed)? ?[Aa]? ?([Ss]ome)? ?([Tt]ypo(es)?s?|[Gg]rammar)?|[Aa]dded [Aa]? ?([Ss]ome)? ?([Ll]inks?|[Cc]ontent))
Reason:Building on the request above, maybe it's a good idea to have a log-only(do nothing), or possibly tag filter for common edit summaries used by vandals. People could patrol that as a further refinement on the existing maybe bad edit recentchanges filter. [Username Needed] 19:42, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Username Needed: I like the idea of a log-only or tagging filter for generic vandal summaries; I'm kind of surprised we don't have one already. I'd also add "made it better" and some of the milder ones that were taken out of Filter 384 ("lol", "blah", "crap", "was here", etc.). But I'm hesitant to name it "Common Vandal Summaries" for something as innocent as "Fixed a typo". Can you think of a better name, that won't offend people when it shows up in their filter log after they fix an actual typo with the summary "fixed a typo", but still hints to patrollers why it was logged? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 17:19, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
- Maybe just "Common Summaries" or "Common edit summaries"? [Username Needed] 19:34, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
-
- @Username Needed:
Done, as 970 (hist · log), with your suggestions. I suspect there will be way to many FPs for this to be useful, but it's worth a try. It also might be possible to refine based on
edit_delta
, e.g. only log "added content" when the size decreases, etc. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:08, 3 March 2019 (UTC)- Suffusion of Yellow, FYI, there's some overlap here with Filter 633 and the "canned edit summaries" tag. Gaelan 💬✏️ 05:06, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Gaelan: It should exclude anything that already hit 633. I'm not seeing anything here that hit both. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 07:23, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
- Suffusion of Yellow, There's no need to check
user_mobile == 1
is there? Since 633 now only checksuser_app == 1
Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:58, 4 March 2019 (UTC)- @Galobtter: Thanks, removed the check. The mobile web interface does suggest "Example: Fixed typo, added content", but the user still needs to manually type them in. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 17:28, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
- Suffusion of Yellow, There's no need to check
- I took a sample of the most recent 20 edits and got a 35% FP rate (or 25% if you count non-disruptive edits with misleading summaries). [Username Needed] 12:38, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
- Most FPs (all bar 1) had an edit delta of <10. Maybe that could reduce the amount of FPs? [Username Needed] 12:42, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Username Needed: Thanks! Some more data. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:51, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
- I've looked through some of the "Added content" section of the data dump and it might be useful to exclude anything that adds a <ref> tag. That should also reduce the FP rate considerably. (Although it depends on whether you think that adding unsourced information should be excluded or not, otherwise it removes a much smaller amount) [Username Needed] 09:02, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Gaelan: It should exclude anything that already hit 633. I'm not seeing anything here that hit both. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 07:23, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Username Needed:
@Username Needed: So. I think I see what's going on here. That vast majority of hits are for exactly (up to capitalization) the phrases "added content" and "fixed typo". So it's not so much a case of sneakiness, but laziness. The mobile web site suggests Example: Fixed typo, added content
so that's what people are typing when they think they have to type something there. Either that or I have much narrower definition of "typo" than most people. Anyway, I've disabled the filter for now while I think about this. 3700 hits is enough data. I'm wondering if instead MediaWiki:Mobile-frontend-editor-summary-placeholder could use some refinement. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:29, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Username Needed: I've re-enabled it for now, with some
edit_delta
checks. We have other filters that check for unreferenced content, so I'm only logging "Added content" when theedit_delta <= 0
. For "Fixed typo", I've gone with your suggestion of only checkingedit_delta > 10 | edit_delta < -10
. I've also created 981, named, in fact, "Common vandal summaries". Right now it's just checking for the word list from 384. See Wikipedia:Edit_filter/False_positives/Archive_96#149.135.11.157 for why it was removed from that filter. - @Galobtter: In that thread you mentioned
some stuff from other filters
. Since the 981 is not disallowing yet, now would be a good time add anything you had in mind. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 01:31, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
TNA to impact
- Task: Catch sock puppet user from violating their block. TNA ----> impact
- Reason: The thing that gives this editor (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tonyjenkins450) away when they edit from IPs or create new accounts is they change historical mentions of TNA Wrestling to Impact Wrestling. Noticeably they always type it "impact", with the lowercase "i". I don't know the technically side of this, as this is my first request here. I was told to come here to stop this disruption after recent SPI case. Any questions feel free to ask. StaticVapor message me! 20:46, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- STATicVapor
Done as 980. Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:57, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Usernames containing "1488"
- Task: Tag usernames containing the number "1488"
- Reason: 1488 is a well known Neo-Nazi symbol - see Fourteen Words. While there may be some false positives, I suspect that most people using these usernames are trolls and POV users.
Feel free to delete this if this filter already exists - I'm not sure how to check if it does. Thanks. 199.7.157.16 (talk) 01:10, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
If it's not already implemented, this is a good idea. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:17, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Done - well, added to User:DeltaQuad/UAA/Blacklist. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:23, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Southern Region
- Task: Prevent IP editors from changing Southern Region of British Railways to British Railways.
- Reason: It is disruptive, and inaccurate. Consensus that an edit filter is needed has been achieved at WT:UKT#Stripping region from BR? Mjroots (talk) 05:54, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Visibility of filter 364
I think filter 364 should be public because it appears to me to be aimed at your typical hit-and-run vandal, rather than any particular LTA. Edit filters are generally made private if they are aimed at an LTA so that he/she does not use the information to figure out how to get around the filter. I mean, people change the names in biographical articles all the time and I doubt these are all the works of a single person. Bolt Strike (talk) 16:59, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Date of Death
Dear Wikipedia,
A simple algorithm criterion like - future date for death not allowed, should be helpful. I just corrected one article where Death date was written in future.
Please take note, Thank you, Regards, Shilpa
Kıbrıs Türk devletı ?
- Task: Block additions of this stuff
- Reason: There's a dynamic? IP ([2], [3]) that's been adding this stuff to a bunch of article for months. Maybe a rangeblock would work too. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:55, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Extending filter 869 to cover all deprecated sources with consensus to implement edit filter warnings
To enact the changes described in the recently closed discussion WT:RSN § Implementing edit filter warnings for deprecated sources, I'm requesting the extension of filter 869 to cover all deprecated sources for which previous RfCs have shown consensus to implement edit filter warnings.
This extension would involve two steps:
- The language in MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning-dailymail should be amended to apply to multiple deprecated sources, not just the Daily Mail. The discussion concluded with a recommendation to use WT:RSN § Modified option 1, reproduced below:
Filter 926 also appears to use MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning-dailymail, but since I'm unable to see the details of filter 926, I can't determine the best course of action for that filter. If MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning-dailymail is revised to the above, it may be worth renaming it to MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning-deprecated, which better reflects the new message.
- Filter 869 should be amended to apply to the domains of all currently deprecated sources with the necessary RfCs:
- The Daily Caller (RfC): dailycaller.com, dailycallernewsfoundation.org
- Daily Mail (2017 RfC, 2019 RfC): dailymail.co.uk
- Last.fm (RfC): last.fm
- NNDB (RfC): nndb.com
- Occupy Democrats (RfC): occupydemocrats.com
- Rate Your Music (RfC): rateyourmusic.com, cinemos.com, glitchwave.com, sonemic.com
- The Sun (United Kingdom) (RfC): thesun.co.uk
- Telesur (RfC): telesurtv.net, telesurenglish.net
- VDARE (RfC): vdare.com
- WorldNetDaily (RfC): wnd.com, worldnetdaily.com
— Newslinger talk 22:06, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Newslinger: 926 is unrelated to MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning-dailymail; it looks the filter number was put there in error. Checking again, Zzuuzz has already fixed it. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:39, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
- Indeed. Just to quickly note that filter 899 should probably also be factored in. Also, this seems like a horribly inefficient way forward. -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:41, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for the correction. Do you have any recommendations for implementing these changes more efficiently? — Newslinger [[User talk:Newslinger#top|talk]::] 23:44, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
- Indeed. Just to quickly note that filter 899 should probably also be factored in. Also, this seems like a horribly inefficient way forward. -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:41, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Newslinger: T216001 would make this a whole lot easier. But I don't think anyone has even started working on that, so there's no way to customize the warning based on the matched phrase. The filter warning will probably need to list all of the deprecated sources to avoid forcing the user to switch back and forth between two tabs trying to figure out which source was the problem. We already get complaints that MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning-selfpublished is confusing, and it only lists five sources. This one will have ten. I'm not opposed to this, but the current software will make the implementation clumsy. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 00:07, 14 April 2019 (UTC)