Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
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 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 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)

Template: space File: linking[edit]

@PaleoNeonate: There's already a disabled filter for it. Dat GuyTalkContribs 08:15, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
@DatGuy: Ah? That's good to know; I suspect that it either wasn't ready, or bogus? Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 08:43, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Template vandalism[edit]

I presume there are already edit filters aimed at this, but please see this edit(admins only I'm afraid) made today to {{"'}} which caused a highly visible notice to be displayed on around 500 highly trafficked pages causing confusion amongst readers: [1] [2]. It isn't the first time this vandal has struck, and it shouldn't be difficult to catch with the edit filter. SmartSE (talk) 16:59, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, Special:AbuseFilter/139 should have caught this, but didn't due to a known issue -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 17:01, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Ah ok then. I guess this can be ignored. SmartSE (talk) 17:12, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

A filter for the text 571886/6886[edit]

  • Task: An edit filter could disallow the addition of the text 571886/6886, on all pages, by IP users.
  • Reason: Hello. I have noticed that one or several IP users are adding the text 571886/6886 on several Wikimedia projects (without being active long enough to start a discussion) since at least March 2017. I have requested a global abuse filter (meta:Vandalism reports#A filter for the text 571886/6886) but I was unaware that the English Wikipedia was not covered by global abuse filters. My request for the global abuse filter contains details and IP, but you can find many other IP just by searching 571886/6886 in the summaries of edits by,,, Regards --NicoScribe (talk) 14:09, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Self-published sources[edit]

I would like to propose a Warn filter for the following websites in main and talk namespace:

  • /
  • /

Both are frequently linked, and most of these are either proposed or actual references failing WP:SPS and WP:RS. As a kindness to editors, I'd like to see a warning and positive action before allowing these to be added or proposed as sources, rather than having to revert them. Guy (Help!) 21:21, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Editing a closed XFD[edit]

  • Task: Prevent new editors, and tag and warn not-new editors, if they try to (1) edit a closed AFD page, (2) edit a closed MFD page, or (3) modify text inside the close tags for a closed XFD of any other type. Make exceptions, of course, for adding the DRV template and unclosing the discussion.
  • Reason: Closed discussions are supposed to remain permanently unchanged, unless you're reopening or challenging them, and an old XFD is a good vandalism target ([3], closed in 2009, is why this is coming to my mind right now), partly because people don't often pay attention to them. Unless adding a new filter for this purpose is misuse of resources, we ought to have a way to catch these edits. Nyttend (talk) 14:25, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
@Nyttend: Late response, sorry, but how would protection for problematic cases not be sufficient to combat this? Is this something that is so widespread that it can't be dealt with on a case-by-case basis? Nihlus 09:04, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
As an aside, it might actually be worth discussion at WP:AN whether we should courtesy blank and protect closed AfDs for BLPs. Guy (Help!) 09:33, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm thinking there is a solution for this somewhere, but I'm not sure the edit filter is it. Nihlus 09:43, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
How in the world are we supposed to know that this 2009 discussion would get hit eight years later? The only way to prevent such vandalism with protection is mass-protecting XFDs. It also wouldn't work with closed discussions on still-open pages, e.g. an FFD. And protection would make it impossible simply to reopen a discussion or to take it to DRV. Nyttend (talk) 12:52, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Admin bot run to protect XFD closed more than 30 days? Guy (Help!) 11:41, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Predatory open access journals[edit]

Match: 10.(4172|4236|5897|11648) in DOI parameter of any citation template
Regex is probably (?i)doi[ ]*=[ ]*10[.](4172|4236|5897|11648)
  • Reason: Continual good-faith addition of material sourced to predatory open access journals. I remove these almost daily. Guy (Help!) 08:48, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
@JzG: As someone who is unfamiliar with this, how are these journals predatory? Is there a discussion about these journals somewhere on the wiki? Also, can you provide some examples as to how frequent this is? Finally, would a search be sufficient in finding them and removing them? Thanks! Nihlus 09:11, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
I cranked up my regex-fu and built filter 891. So: I have now linked predatory open access, which may help (my bad). You can also see discussions at WP:RSN, e.g. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 233 § Predatory publishers, fake conferences and academics who find them a way to succeed. These journals are identified in the canonical reference on predatory journals, Beall's list. They are also not listed in the Directory of Open Access Journals. There are also numerous independent commentaries on them, and in the case of OMICS, also a long term abuse case, a global ban on all OMICS employees, and an ongoing case by the Federal Trade Commission. I can search for them, and I do that regularly, but every time I find new cites, which is why a filter is needed. Users are, in good faith, adding sources that I then have to go and remove because they are known to be unreliable. Guy (Help!) 09:27, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Nihlus that I'd like to see something more than the one bullet point at WP:SCHOLARSHIP before resorting to edit filters. – Train2104 (t • c) 12:46, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
This has been the subject of numerous discussions at RSN and elsewhere. most recently [4]. Guy (Help!) 11:40, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

There is no reason why we should not at least monitor this (as we start of like that anyway): Special:AbuseFilter/893. I am not opposed to 'friendly' warning afterwards. Heck, I am not even opposed to a harsher setting on XLinkBot for this. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:51, 6 December 2017 (UTC) Will delete .. thanks User:Nihlus, it was hidden in the text. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:10, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

@Beetstra: This was already created at Special:AbuseFilter/891. Nihlus 11:55, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Beetstra: There's Special:AbuseFilter/891 (see above) already, so I think Special:AbuseFilter/893 might be redundant if I understand right. Κσυπ Cyp   11:59, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Self-published books[edit]

Re-activating a request by Doug Weller from way back when:

  • Task: Tag articles where sources are added where the publisher is one of a number of well-known self-publishing companies such as AuthorHouse (at times called Author House), Trafford Publishing, iUniverse, Xulon and Xlibris, sometimes cited as Xlibris/Random House.
  • Reason: These sources should generally (but not always) not be used per WP:SPS but many editors are unaware of this or that the source is self-published. Flagging such additions would aid editors who are watching the relevant articles.

Since this request was made, the problem has continued to grow. We have literally thousands of references to self-published books on, a substantial proportion of whihc turn out to have been added by the author, and very few of which are actually reliable sources. I have removed several hundred, of which exactly two have subsequently been agreed to be RS. Guy (Help!) 11:50, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Testing on 861 (q.v.), trying to keep it cheap. CrowCaw 18:08, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Lamon Brewster[edit]

  • Task: Add "my hero" as a filter to the article.
  • Reason: Very persistent vandalism since July, by an IP from Finland, who keeps adding that string. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 20:53, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Symbol declined.svgN Denied Thanks for the suggestion Mac Dreamstate, but this isn't really at a level where an abuse filter is appropriate (similar to what Nihlus said at this request). Edit filters are used for widespread or especially damaging edits -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 21:11, 8 December 2017 (UTC)