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-editfilterslists.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.
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 4 sections are present.
Warn about a Wikipedia mirror
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:
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
Task: Reduce Redirect vandalism in Project namespace
Reason: After my discussion with
Suffusion of Yellow and seeing
this search I noticed a consistent amount of vandalism (average of around 2-2.5 edits per day for the last 2 months), some get picked up by Filter
1151 but most aren't.
Task: This filter would tag a diff if it removes the {{BLP-PROD}} tag without adding any new references, possibly distinguished if the edit does not add a <ref> </ref> tag.
Reason: This filter would be useful in RCP and in the page history in general for abuse management, so editors can identify when the {{BLP-PROD}} tag is removed without adding references.
Diffs: Many, most diffs of this kind are deleted along with the page, but I believe it is pretty self-explanitory
Requires more information The use-case seems fine, as far as I can tell, but I'll need some diffs for these or at least pages to go off of. I looked through your prod log but all the removals of those tags that I can see are valid and have references in the article. Also likely would result in a lot of false positives if one was to remove the tag before adding the references, or to add the references and then remove the tag in another edit.
EggRoll97(
talk) 06:24, 1 August 2024 (UTC)reply
POVPUSH removal of "Black"
Task: Test for a no-insertion one-line removal of / ?[Bb]lack ?/. Tag or only log articlespace edits by non-autoconfirmed editors.
Reason: Some instances of this subtle POVPUSH may remain undetected for a long time. An EF can produce a list to review.
Deferred to
WP:RFPP,
WP:AIV, and similar. The diffs provided are a singular IP, but that can be dealt with via blocks and protection. Generally the disruption should be somewhat widespread for a filter to have much effect here.
EggRoll97(
talk) 06:04, 1 August 2024 (UTC)reply
Here are more UCR diffs, all by different IPs: [3][4][5][6].
Those IPs did not edit more than 2 articles so
WP:AIV would say "insufficiently warned". In the [7] that I caught, the page was over a year old so would not normally qualify for
WP:RFPP, and it was undetected for half a month. Those edits were reverted by multiple editors with long edit histories. This hit-and-run disruption is attempting to hide the alteration of POV. A tagging EF will have the effect of revealing the full extent of the damage.
142.113.140.146 (
talk)
06:33, 1 August 2024 (UTC)reply
Prevent publication of red-linked example at a Help page
WITHDRAWN
Sample removed from Help page in order to develop the idea further in Draft space, so this is moot for now. This can be archived, but I may come back to it later.
Mathglot (
talk)
04:38, 3 August 2024 (UTC)reply
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Task: This filter should prevent publication of any page at
Underwater astronomy, which is intentionally red-linked from
Help:Your first article#How to create a new page (just added) as an example to new editors creating their first article. This applies to all editors, at
Help:Your first article. Theoretically only on that one page, although hopefully no one will try to create it from somewhere else. I suppose admins should be allowed to publish there, although I don't think their article would survive
Afd.
Reason:
Help:Your first article is a page which attracts brand new editors that habitually try things out—as
well they should—but also including stuff they shouldn't, which is why the page itself is indefinitely semi-protected: the page was routinely altered/corrupted with test edits by brand new users viewing it and trying it out as their sandbox. It would be annoying to have this sample red link turn blue and constantly have to deal with it. But the new editors are encouraged to click the link, to see what a
preview window looks like, and even to type stuff into it; they just should not be allowed to publish it.
Diffs: No diffs yet, this red link was added moments ago. However, because of a glitch during an operation today, the page was briefly unprotected for a few minutes, and right on cue, almost instantly had its TemplateStyles link corrupted by a test edit (
diff; quickly removed and reprotected). It's only a matter of time before someone tries to publish something at that red link as Their First Article. Let's not let that happen, and then have to chase it down afterward. Thanks,
Mathglot (
talk)
02:38, 3 August 2024 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Vandalism from changing IPs with a recognizable edit summary pattern
Task: Can something be done about the vandalism from changing IPs like the examples below with a recognizable pattern especially with their edit summaries?