Jump to content

Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Requested edit filters
    Shortcuts

    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@lists.wikimedia.org.

    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:

    • Edit filters are used primarily to prevent abuse. Contributors are not expected to have read all 200+ policies, guidelines and style pages before editing. 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.
    • Filters are applied to all edits. Problematic changes that apply to a single page are likely not suitable for an edit filter. Page protection may be more appropriate in such cases.
    • Non-essential tasks or those that require access to complex criteria, especially information that the filter does not have access to, may be more appropriate for a bot task or external software.
    • To prevent the creation of pages with certain names, the title blacklist 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.
    • To prevent the registration of accounts with certain names, please make your request at the global title blacklist.
    • To prevent the registration of accounts with certain email addresses, please make your request at the email blacklist.

    Click here to create a new request



    Warn about a Wikipedia mirror

    [edit]

    Ed-Tech Press, also known as "Scientific E-Resources, is a Wikipedia mirror. They print copies of books that are just Wikipedia articles. Per WP:CIRCULAR, we should never cite them in articles. Unfortunately, these books are listed in Google Books, and there's no obvious warning on them. I've inadvertently cited them twice recently. While I really appreciate reversions like this one, it seems like this is an area where an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Could we please have an abuse filter set up for this string:

    |publisher=Scientific e-Resources

    which should catch most {{cite book}} uses? If it would be great if it could produce a warning message like "Ed-Tech Press and Scientific E-Resources are Wikipedia mirrors. They are not reliable sources and should not be cited in articles per WP:CIRCULAR." I think that the 'warn' setting should be sufficient. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:42, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you making this request - this publisher is just the worst. There is deliberately no attempt to identify the nature of the copied materials; it's just a straight up scam. There are three things I usually search for: "Ed-Tech Press", "Scientific e-Resources" (which is typically displayed when a google books link is resolved in a template), and the URL of "edtechpress.co.uk". I do agree with the warning being sufficient as I don't recall this ever being used on-wiki by a bad-faith actor. Sam Kuru (talk) 02:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah. Possible filter code for catching this could be:
    page_namespace == 0 &
!contains_any(user_groups, "bot", "sysop", "extendedconfirmed") & (
   mirrors := "(?:\|publisher\s*\=\s*(?:(?:[Ss]cientific [Ee]\s?-\s?[Rr]esources)|(?:Ed\s?-\s?[Tt]ech [Pp]ress)))|(?:\|url\s*\=\s*edtechpress\.co\.uk)";
   added_lines irlike mirrors &
   !(removed_lines irlike mirrors)
)
    I would create a log-only filter at first, and if it does well, ramp it up to warn. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 22:05, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for this. I understand that starting as a long-only filter is common, and I've no objection. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @WhatamIdoing, Kuru, and PharyngealImplosive7: If there is consensus for deprecation, it could just be added to 869 (hist · log), which might be better than a new filter just for this. Most likely Deferred to WP:RSN. EggRoll97 (talk) 18:48, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @EggRoll97, I don't think that it should be handled through the RSP system. It's not a case of "deprecated at RSN"; instead, it's a case of "banned by policy" (Wikipedia:Verifiability#Wikipedia and sources that mirror or use it being the most relevant policy). The deprecation message wouldn't be appropriate. Instead, I think it needs a message that is specific to Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:44, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Requires more information Do you have any diffs to go off of by chance for this? It would be helpful to see this being added in a diff to be able to test a possible filter on one. EggRoll97 (talk) 06:26, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure. Look at this one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:25, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Still doing... I've been trying to build this filter, but I'm running into syntax errors. Still working on it, but this one seems to be taking time. EggRoll97 (talk) 13:40, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for working on it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:37, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm getting syntax errors, but I'm not sure what exactly is going wrong. This may be past my expertise, I'm not sure why it's throwing Expected a ) at character 53, not found (found T_STRING bot instead). From all I can tell, the code above seems fine, but batch testing doesn't like it, and I've got no idea currently on how to fix it. I've tried adding more parentheses, but everything seems to be closed up, so it shouldn't be throwing the error as far as I'm aware. EggRoll97 (talk) 05:40, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Would finding another pair of eyes be helpful? We could ask at VPT. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:50, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is supposed to be a comma after user_groups(example). Sorry I didn't notice this before. – 2804:F1...A7:C558 (talk) 15:29, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added the comma. – 2804:F1...A7:C558 (talk) 15:34, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I actually happened to try that when trying to build the filter in /test, adding the comma removes that error there, but adds a new syntax error on line 4, Syntax error detected: Expected a ) at character 256, not found (found T_ID added_lines instead). EggRoll97 (talk) 19:02, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe additionally the mirrors := declaration? Supposedly needs a semicolon at the end: User-defined variables.
    I've added that in too. – 2804:F1...A7:C558 (talk) 19:56, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Testing at 1323. Apologies for this taking so long, I've been a bit busy with other matters. EggRoll97 (talk) 06:24, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    \o/
    Congratulations. I hope that the testing proves conclusive. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:09, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just noting here that there have been no hits so far. We might want to wait for another 2 weeks and if there are still no hits then, consider deleting the filter. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 22:38, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    New users adding sock / block templates to other user's pages

    [edit]
    • Task: Disallow new users / IPs from adding block templates including sock blocking templates to users that aren't blocked
    • Reason: In general there's almost no reason for any but the most seasoned IPs or new accounts to add block templates that are typically automatically added by the blocking admin. Either a total block of new users adding block templates, or only for non-blocked accounts.
    • Diffs: Special:Diff/1184722881 (likely) single-time vandal doing this type of disruption happening on an administrator's page. This user may have been auto-confirmed, so this may need to apply to all non-ECP+ users.

    GeorgeMemulous (talk) 23:57, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm making some regex right now, but what I'm concerned about is that this edit is from over a year ago. Do you have any other more recent examples? Because otherwise, it wouldn't be necessary to create a whole new filter. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 02:11, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't we already have 1157 (hist · log) that does this purpose? Codename Noreste 🤔 Talk 03:00, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Clearly that didn't stop this particular instance of disruption. Although, I can't think of many times this was added recently. I do know of an LTA that's recently been adding unblock requests to their own pages as an already unblocked account, so maybe that could be added? Either way, disruption is disruption, but if it isn't that common I suppose a filter is unnecessary. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 18:35, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just stumbled upon an example from just now of a disruptive editor adding a block template to an unblocked IP's page. See here. Not disallowed by any existing filter. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 23:56, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    803 (hist · log) could probably also be adjusted for sleeper accounts like this one. Nobody (talk) 05:44, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Edit_filter/Requested&oldid=1244922343"