Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested

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:

  • Filters are applied to all edits. Therefore, problematic changes that apply to a single page are likely not suitable for an edit filter.
  • Each filter takes time to run, making editing (and to some extent other things) slightly slower. The time is only a few milliseconds per filter, but with enough filters that adds up. When the system is near its limit, adding a new filter may require removing another filter in order to keep the system within its limits.
  • There is a limit to what filters can check for. More complex, non-essential tasks, such as those that need to perform a more in-depth check of the page or fetch information that the filter system does not have access to, are better served by separate software, run by an individual user on their own machine or dedicated server such as Tool Labs, rather than those used to actually host Wikipedia.
  • It used to be called the abuse filter for a reason. Contributors are not expected to have read all 200+ policies, guidelines and style pages. Trivial formatting mistakes and edits that at first glance look fine but go against some obscure style guideline or arbitration ruling are not suitable candidates for an edit filter – quite apart from performance concerns, if it doesn't harm the project, it is best not to hassle new contributors because of it.
  • To prevent the creation of pages with certain names, MediaWiki:Titleblacklist is usually a better way to handle the problem - see MediaWiki talk:Titleblacklist for details.
  • To prevent the addition of problematic external links, please make your request at the spam blacklist.



Non-autoconfirmed user rapidly reverting edits[edit]

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)
  • I'd support this for a trial period. Checking the last 500 times this filter fired, just a handful of the Ips that triggered it are not blocked as of now. CrowCaw 19:16, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Refspammer[edit]

  • 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[edit]

  • 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: 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[edit]

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)
  • Actually "Stock summaries" may be a good name. [Username Needed] 20:19, 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 checks user_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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • Since we seem to be using this to monitor, I've put a noarchive on this in case any of us go on a wikibreak. [Username Needed] 09:08, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── @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 the edit_delta <= 0. For "Fixed typo", I've gone with your suggestion of only checking edit_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)
Hmm, I don't remember what those filters were; as a sidenote, you need !summary rlike ("\[\[Special:Contributions.*(" + match + ".*)") from 225, otherwise all reversion of users with bad names will be blocked. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:21, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
I think that 981 can be set to tag - I just looked through the first 50 and found only 3 FPs - 2 of which were issues with lol (which may have to be removed from this filter) [Username Needed] 20:21, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Filtering for date "May 15 2001", etc.[edit]

Added here. -- zzuuzz (talk) 05:34, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Indians stinky[edit]

  • Task: Stinky vandal writes, (hate to write this but it is needed here for clarity): "Indians are stinky".
  • Reason: We have a persistent vandal (for quite some time), the stinky vandal, who continually attacks India-related articles (e.g. South India), and Indian cooking pages, and also pages like Stink and Stinky to make derogatory comments about people from the Indian Subcontinent -- Alexf(talk) 11:10, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
This is User:Arjayay/Anti-Indian Racist and 954 (hist · log) is the existing filter trying to combat them. — JJMC89(T·C) 03:14, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Special:AbuseFilter/891 (add iMedPub LTD, Ashdin Publishing and others)[edit]

Here are two divisions/affiliates of of the OMICS Publishing Group.

  • iMedPub, with DOI prefix 10.21767
  • Ashdin Publishing, with DOI prefix 10.4303

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:56, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Also

  • Science Publishing Corporation, with DOI prefix 10.14419
  • MECS Press, with DOI prefix 10.5815

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:45, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

De-archived Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:12, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

S122595264[edit]

  • Task: filter out the string S122595264
  • Reason: Scammers yet again, apparently. Not 100% sure if this is another fake tech support number or something else. The string actually has it's own facebook page for some reason. [2] but it doesn't make anything any clearer. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:59, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Excessive and irrelevant linking, even down to syllables of words[edit]

I opened a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Excessive and irrelevant linking, even down to syllables of words, and another editor suggested that I post a notification here. Narky Blert (talk) 12:46, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Just checking for back-to-back links would probably be a useful filter, something like \]\]\[\[ might even be enough. creffpublic a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 13:51, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
@Creffett: That's been suggested in the ANI thread as well, and it looks as if it could work. Narky Blert (talk) 15:27, 21 October 2019 (UTC)