Requested edit filters |
---|
This page can be used to request edit filters, or changes to existing filters. Edit filters are primarily used to address common patterns of harmful editing. Private filters should not be discussed in detail. If you wish to discuss creating an LTA filter, or changing an existing one, please instead email details to wikipedia-en-editfilters Otherwise, please add a new section at the bottom using the following format: == Brief description of filter == *'''Task''': What is the filter supposed to do? To what pages and editors does it apply? *'''Reason''': Why is the filter needed? *'''Diffs''': Diffs of sample edits/cases. If the diffs are revdelled, consider emailing their contents to the mailing list. ~~~~ Please note the following:
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Claiming the death of an article subject
- Task: section titled "death". claims in general that the subject is dead
- Reason: This filter is needed for the same reason Special:AbuseFilter/712 in needed
67.21.154.193 (talk) 15:40, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- Might I add that it should trip to tag if there is a ref provided, but trips to warn or something if no reference is provided. Generally this would be a filter, active on BLP articles, that trips at the addition of "foo died" or "foo [wildcard, to allow for adjectives] passed away" or similar strings. I've seen a bit of this on RC patrol. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 14:34, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- The main reason I want this is to help prevent death hoaxes from appearing. If it gets overlooked early, it could end up being a while before someone notices. 67.21.154.193 (talk) 13:49, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- so.... is there gonna be any discussion? any action? 67.21.154.193 (talk) 15:22, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- Should I ping someone to this discussion? 67.21.154.193 (talk) 12:06, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- I decided that I am going to ping @Ohnoitsjamie: to this page because he's quite active, and numerous sections have not had any response from EF mamagers. 67.21.154.193 (talk) 14:37, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- I don't have time at the moment to work on that; I have written that kind of filter before; I'd want to do a lot of testing on it first as it's more complex than average. OhNoitsJamie Talk 13:57, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- I decided that I am going to ping @Ohnoitsjamie: to this page because he's quite active, and numerous sections have not had any response from EF mamagers. 67.21.154.193 (talk) 14:37, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- Should I ping someone to this discussion? 67.21.154.193 (talk) 12:06, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- so.... is there gonna be any discussion? any action? 67.21.154.193 (talk) 15:22, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- The main reason I want this is to help prevent death hoaxes from appearing. If it gets overlooked early, it could end up being a while before someone notices. 67.21.154.193 (talk) 13:49, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
Came across deleted filter 40, but it seems like it would require significant rework if we were to revive it. 67.21.154.193 (talk) 12:44, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Mako001: I really doubt this will be all that useful; there are just too many ways to say, or imply, that someone's dead. In addition to the usual euphemisms, there's also "he was shot by an angry fan", "he overdosed on heroin", "he was eaten by a grizzly bear", and so on and so on. But I'm testing a few common words in 1014 (hist · log); we'll see how much noise there is. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:34, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Suffusion of Yellow: Yeah, I'd agree with you on that, it may just prove to be impossible to actually make a filter to check this. I guess it's worth a shot to see what your test filter gets though. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 03:58, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Helping newer users deal with dead links appropriately
- Task: Use a custom warning message to notify a newer user or IP when they attempt to remove a url or ref with an edit summary including "dead url/ref/link" "404 error/message" "doesn't work" or any other string which would indicate that they are removing it because it is a wp:dead link. The message would be more friendly in tone, and would include links to guidelines about dealing with dead links, and a brief summary of those guidelines, something along the lines of "Instead of removing dead links, tag them with
{{dead link}}
..., try to find an archive yourself at one of these sites (add links to useful archive sites here) or, if you have an account, try using (IABot console link here)." - Reason: Many inexperienced users will (in good faith) remove broken links, thinking that they are of no use anymore, and not actually realise that it is a problem. Whilst "references removed" is helpful, this would be a narrower filter than that one, and is designed to offer advice and guidance to users who may not realise that their edits are possibly problematic. If alerted to the appropriate way of dealing with such links, I believe that most of these users would do so, as the responses I have got to uw-dead1 warnings whilst on RC patrol seem to be quite positive along the lines of "oh, thanks, I didn't realise I could fix that, I'll do that now".
Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 05:50, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Mako001: That could also catch a certain spammer who replaces dead links by links to irrelevant content on a website they promote. Certes (talk) 10:55, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- I think I've seen that one before too, though it would probably need to be more complex than the idea that I had of just "lines removed contains <ref> or </ref>" and "edit summary contains dead link/ref/page/site or 404 or link broken/doesn't work/dead". Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 11:05, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Mako001: No, the spammer uses an edit summary along the lines of "dead link". They believe (or want us to believe) that a link to their website is an improvement on a dead link. Certes (talk) 11:28, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Certes: Do they ever remove the ref tags? If not then it would probably need to be a more complex filter, but the issue you are referring to would be better handled by the spam blacklist anyway (as I understand). Did you want to propose an addition there? Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 11:51, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Mako001: No, they leave everything unchanged except the URL. It's low volume and we have checks for the text they add, but if it grows then they can go on the blacklist. Certes (talk) 11:53, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- Hmm, if that was a filter, it would have to be a separate filter then, and an LTA one too, so it'd be best to not discuss it here. My idea is to just check if the lines removed contains ref tags or http(s):\\ and has an edit summary suggesting a dead link was removed, so it wouldn't catch their sort of edits. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 12:03, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- So: Lines removed would contain (or similar function if it would be lighter) "<ref>" and/or "</ref>" and/or "http(s)://" along with an edit summary containing "dead link/ref/page/site" "404" "does not/n't work" (and anything else that whoever hypothetically writes the filter can think of). Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 04:08, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Hmm, if that was a filter, it would have to be a separate filter then, and an LTA one too, so it'd be best to not discuss it here. My idea is to just check if the lines removed contains ref tags or http(s):\\ and has an edit summary suggesting a dead link was removed, so it wouldn't catch their sort of edits. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 12:03, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Mako001: No, they leave everything unchanged except the URL. It's low volume and we have checks for the text they add, but if it grows then they can go on the blacklist. Certes (talk) 11:53, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Certes: Do they ever remove the ref tags? If not then it would probably need to be a more complex filter, but the issue you are referring to would be better handled by the spam blacklist anyway (as I understand). Did you want to propose an addition there? Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 11:51, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Mako001: No, the spammer uses an edit summary along the lines of "dead link". They believe (or want us to believe) that a link to their website is an improvement on a dead link. Certes (talk) 11:28, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- I think I've seen that one before too, though it would probably need to be more complex than the idea that I had of just "lines removed contains <ref> or </ref>" and "edit summary contains dead link/ref/page/site or 404 or link broken/doesn't work/dead". Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 11:05, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
Fix <source>
tag detection in Filter 432
Currently, filter 432 does a check to ensure that <source lang=
is not in the new wikitext. However, this has 2 failures to it that make the detection practically useless.
First of all, <source>
is deprecated, and has been superceded by <syntaxhighlight>
, which is used instead, so the detection should be at least swapped from <source lang=
to <syntaxhighlight lang=
(Or both, though judging from the changes in the deprecation tracking category, I don't see source getting used ever).
Second of all, the filter immediately follows the check with a look for lang=
, which disregards the possibility of the inline
attribute which could come before it (E.g. <syntaxhighlight inline lang=text>
).
Side note: I have no idea if this is the correct place to suggest an edit to a filter rather than a new filter, but I don't see any pages anywhere for filter requests other than this, so I'm putting it here. Aidan9382 (talk) 08:16, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- Replacing line 8
!( "<source lang=" in new_wikitext ) &
with one of the following should resolve this request:- source + syntaxhighlight + inline
!( new_wikitext rlike "<(source|syntaxhighlight) (inline )?lang=" ) &
- syntaxhighlight + inline
!( new_wikitext rlike "<syntaxhighlight (inline )?lang=" ) &
- source + syntaxhighlight + inline
- Adding conditions using
in
might have better performance than usingrlike
. Adding these lines would add the described detection:- source without inline exists as line 8
- source + inline
!( "<source inline lang=" in new_wikitext ) &
- syntaxhighlight + inline
!( "<syntaxhighlight inline lang=" in new_wikitext ) &
- syntaxhighlight without inline
!( "<syntaxhighlight lang=" in new_wikitext ) &
- I don't have the permission needed to change editfilters, I'm just replying to hopefully save time for someone who can do it. PHANTOMTECH (talk) 20:02, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Aidan9382 and PhantomTech:
Done, see Special:AbuseFilter/history/432/diff/prev/27233. Just removed the "lang" check entirely to keep it simple. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 18:55, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Aidan9382 and PhantomTech:
{{unblock reviewed}} template removal while blocked
- Task: Warn blocked users when removing the template
- Reason: As per the declined unblock message, the template should not be removed while blocked. When the template is removed, they should be warned about it.
Sheep (talk) 17:21, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Sheep8144402 There are some disabled private filters that might be related to this so there may be a reason why this wont be done, possibly due to low occurrence. This isn't something that needs to be caught before it happens so a bot noticing and reverting the change might be a better option since, if I'm remembering correctly, every edit filter slightly slows the time it takes to process every single edit but a bot would not do that.
- Edit filters can warn, allowing the editor to make the edit anyway, but they can also block. Just to clarify, are you suggesting that if a filter is made for this it only warns the user or are you suggesting that it blocks the user from doing this? PHANTOMTECH (talk) 06:32, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'm suggesting that it warns the user just in case that if it's set to disallow, they add the template and then when removing it, the edit is blocked by the filter. Warn is a useful action in case this happens and to let the editor be aware of the removal of the unblock template while blocked. Sheep (talk) 12:22, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
- I will say only this. The "no removing declined unblock messages" is a terrible rule. It amounts to punishment for daring to question a block. Get blocked by trigger-happy admin? Ok, go ahead and blank your talk page, and leave. But appeal the block? Forever badge-of-shame for you! As in, literally, a Wikipedia page, with your name right at the top, where someone says nasty things about you, that you can't do anything about. All because, apparently, it's just too too hard to click on the page history before reviewing a block.
- Ok, end rant. But I will take no part in enforcing this rule; though I won't try to stop anyone else who does. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:59, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'm suggesting that it warns the user just in case that if it's set to disallow, they add the template and then when removing it, the edit is blocked by the filter. Warn is a useful action in case this happens and to let the editor be aware of the removal of the unblock template while blocked. Sheep (talk) 12:22, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
- This seems like the kind of filter which, despite not being set to disallow, should probably get community consensus before being implemented. Sam Walton (talk) 11:53, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Disallow creation of redirects from User/User talk root page to Main Page
- Task: Disallow the creation of redirects from root User/User talk pages to Main Page (or any other page that suppresses the (Redirect from ...) verbiage). Applies to all editors, applies only to edits on root User/User talk pages.
- Reason: Violation of WP:UP, interferes with interface, makes reaching an editor to contact them or collaborate with them difficult.
- Diffs: 1 2, 3
—Locke Cole • t • c 18:25, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, I will admit to doing that once (quite a while ago, I had a content dispute spillover onto my talkpage, and couldn't even edit it without hitting edit conflicts over and over). Tripping a filter would have let me know that what I was about to do was a really stupid idea. So I'll add a diff here
- 4 Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 04:18, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Locke Cole Is there a list of pages that suppress "Redirect from"? You mention Main Page and I assume the special namespace does it too but it's not something I pay specific attention to. PHANTOMTECH (talk) 04:32, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- @PhantomTech:
I assume the special namespace does it too
apparently redirects to Special pages are not allowed by design: User:SPUI/randomIs there a list of pages that suppress "Redirect from"?
Not that I'm aware of, there is some discussion at this BOT request page about how the notice is suppressed. Ideally we wouldn't suppress the redirect notice at all, but I assumed (perhaps incorrectly?) there was a legitimate reason for Main Page to have that turned off. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:42, 27 June 2022 (UTC)- Here's a filter for it. This catches any redirect from user root or user talk root to any destination outside of either of those two places. It does not catch a soft redirect. I can't move it here for testing because I don't have the permission. PHANTOMTECH (talk) 05:57, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- I would honestly just restrict it to redirects to Main Page. Other redirects are annoying, but produce the expected "(Redirected from...)" link that allows you to get back to the user page. Unless there's a consensus for disallowing them all, which I am not opposed to (because: WP:BEANS). —Locke Cole • t • c 15:55, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Here's a filter for it. This catches any redirect from user root or user talk root to any destination outside of either of those two places. It does not catch a soft redirect. I can't move it here for testing because I don't have the permission. PHANTOMTECH (talk) 05:57, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- @PhantomTech:
- If this is going to expand to not allowing redirects outside of ns2/3 at all: I don't think this should apply to ns2. — xaosflux Talk 15:54, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Would you be fine with not allowing redirects to just Main Page from 2/3? —Locke Cole • t • c 15:57, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- As a note, I have no preference to how restrictive this should be other than redirects from root user talk to Main Page should not be allowed at a minimum, it just wasn't a big step up from that to what I made on testwiki so that's the filter I made. PHANTOMTECH (talk) 19:50, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Would you be fine with not allowing redirects to just Main Page from 2/3? —Locke Cole • t • c 15:57, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- I know we're all volunteers here, but is there any timetable for when requests are acted on, or what does the process look like? —Locke Cole • t • c 19:57, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Offensive edit summary
Shouldn't an existing filter catch this? Certes (talk) 10:23, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Special:AbuseFilter/384 is probably the most relevant filter. It doesn't check summaries but I'm not sure if there's a reason for that. PHANTOMTECH (talk) 19:31, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Special:AbuseFilter/627
Can the phrase "contact us" be added to this filter? Contact information is almost never appropriate to insert to an article, and I would have expected a page such as User:Myhomewatch/sandbox to have triggered this filter for containing this phrase. Mori Calliope fan talk 18:27, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- That might be a little tricky. Contact us frequently appears inside of references (why it does or whether or not it ever should is another matter). OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:51, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
The word ‘singao’
- Task: Warn and tag as possible vandalism when a non-autoconfirmed user adds the word 'singao' into a Cuba-related article.
- Reason: 'Singao' is a vulgar Spanish word used in Cuba, meaning something to the extent of 'motherfucker'. It's a term frequently used to vandalise pages related to Cuban politics.
- Diffs: Special:Diff/1096814939, Special:Diff/1089277019
Helen(💬📖) 23:57, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
EF 189 and ccnorm/norm
189 (hist · log)
This filter should probably match a libelous edit like this: Special:Diff/1088504111. I saw ccnorm
from mw:Extension:AbuseFilter/Rules format#Functions, and I think it can be used for this? Thanks. 0xDeadbeef 06:22, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
A filter to warn editors who sign their mainspace contributions
- Task: Warns users that it is inappropriate to sign their main space contributions
- Reason: To avoid users signing their mainspace contributions.
- Diffs: None found; this filter is meant to be pre-emptive.
I propose the following code, but by all means, please check it first:
page_namespace == 0 & ( added_lines irlike "(~~~|~~~~|~~~~~)" )
Thanks, NotReallySoroka (talk) 13:00, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- NotReallySoroka, if a user signs on mainspace they would match Special:AbuseFilter/1090, although ~~~~~ isn't matched. (edit: not sure if edit filters run after signatures are expanded - if they are run before that then this would be useful) 0xDeadbeef 15:10, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- @0xDeadbeef
Edit filters runadded_lines
evaluates before signature expansion, see traps and pitfalls.added_lines_pst
would need to be used for the current pattern in 1090 to catch a signature. PHANTOMTECH (talk) 17:38, 7 July 2022 (UTC)- Thank you for your insights. NotReallySoroka (talk) 00:26, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- @0xDeadbeef
- @NotReallySoroka: I'd really want to see some diffs demonstrating that this is common and disruptive enough for an edit filter. We don't have limitless resources for filters and need to prioritise those which help prevent disruption to the project. Sam Walton (talk) 09:18, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Requested Update to Filter 614
- Task: Match LMFAO
- Reason: Currently matches LMAO but not LMFAO
- Diffs: Special:Diff/1098091075
- Regex should become:
y\s*o\s*[lo\s]+s\s*w\s*[4ae]+\s*g+|\by+o+l+o[lo]+|s+w+[4ae]+gg[g]+|#yolo|#sw[4ae]g|sw[4ae]g\s*(?:yolo|daddy|money|lord|master)|420\s*b+l+a+z+e+\s*i+t+|\s*i\s*n\s*t\s*h\s*[ae]\s*p\s*(?:(?:[@uv*]\s*)+(?:[zs$*]\s*)+|[zs$*]{2,})\s*a*y+|\bt+r+o+l(?:o+l|ll)|lolo(?:lo)+|(?:d[3e](?:[3e]+[sz]+|[sz][sz]*)e*|th[3e][zs$][3e])\s*n+u+t+[zs$]|(?:f[u\*][c\*]k(?:ing?|ed|s)|sex\s*with?)\s*chickens?|chicken\s*f[u\*]?[c\*]k(?:er|s|ing)?|(?:them\'?s?|dems?|those\s+are)'?\s+(?:th[ea]|da)\s+fa(?:cts|x)!?|hitler\s*did\s*nothing?\s*wrong|bush\s*did\s*9.?11|dank\s*meme|drumpf|\bdat\s* boi|sub(?:scrib(?:e|es|ed|ing))?\s*(?:to|2)\s*(?:p(ew|ud|ue|uw|oo)|te*.?series)|tran?s?.?manian?\b|chung[uea]s\b|gucci\s*gang[\s,]*gucci\s*gang|\br+eeeeee|fetus\s*deletus|(?<!koe\s)\by+ee+t+(?:e+(?:r+|d+))?\b|\beats?\s*ass\b|ugandan\s*knuckles|hard\s+(?:pp|peepee)|(?:pp|peepee)\s+hard|\booo+f+\b|\bnibb+a+\b|absolute\s*unit|you'?ve\s*been\s*gnomed|\bt+\s*h+\s*i+\s*c\s*c|\bg+a+yy(?:y|\b)|\bayyy|\bl+m+f*a+o|rawr\s*xd|b+o+iii|e+s+k+e+t+i+t|\bh+iii+\b|h+iiiii|hehehe|aviation\s*,[\s\S]*?there\s*is\s*no[\s\S]*?bee[\s\S]*?be\s*able\s*to\s*fly|dQw4w9WgXcQ|\buwu\b|hit\s*or\s*miss[\s,]*I\s*guess|ok(?:ay)?,? boomer|joe m[oa]m+a|#redirect\s*\[\[donald[\s_]trump\]\]|epst(?:ei|ie)n\W+did\s*n.?t\s+kill|\bbruv+\b|\bbruh+\b|(?<!\d|#)(?:69\D*420|420\D*69|(?:69\D{0,50}){3,})(?!\d)|\b(?:ranboo|tubbo)|quandale\s*dingle
It's really hard to see the change because of the regex length, to clarify the change the current segment \bl+m+a+o
should become \bl+m+f*a+o
PHANTOMTECH [TALK]
05:23, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
"Matthew Fagwell" vandalism
I've encountered a few instances recently ([1] [2] [3]) of different editors adding a bogus name into articles. I'm not sure if this is a widespread thing recently or just a one-time spree, but considering it could be very easily missed I thought it'd be worth adding a request here, or at the very least adding it to an existing test filter temporarily to see if the edits subside. DatGuyTalkContribs 11:31, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- You could also do an insource search: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=insource%3A%22Fagwell%22&title=Special:Search&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1 0xDeadbeef 11:37, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Shouting outside of mainspace
- Task: Using Special:AbuseFilter/50 for shouting outside of mainspace
- Reason: Typically just as disruptive as any other shouting.
- Diffs: Special:Diff/1098440575
–LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:01, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
De-duplication
"niggah" is matched twice in the regex of AbuseFilter/260. AbuseFilter/384 has it as well. They should be unified. 0xDeadbeef 15:29, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- @0xDeadbeef:
Done Already took care of this when responding to your EFN post. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:32, 18 July 2022 (UTC)