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.
Task: A new filter could prevent the non-autoconfirmed from adding links to instagram[.]com to Talk:Instagram.
Reason: There has been a persistent problem with self-promotion on Talk:Instagram where users link their Instagram profiles or posts in an attempt to gain followers. This advertising is quickly reverted. Semi-protection has been applied as a countermeasure, though the protecting admin has admitted that this isn't ideal (see Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Archive/2024/06). I believe that this filter would be a better alternative than protecting a talk page.
Semi-protection recently expired; immediately after, the page started being bombarded with promotion. It was soon semi-protected again. I am requesting a filter because it is better than semi-protecting. Air on White (talk) 02:47, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I took a superficial look of the last 50+ edits and I'm not convinced that self-promotion (adding links) is even 1/4th of the disruption, so I don't foresee the protection being removed even if this filter is made. – 2804:F14:80BE:B501:BC28:2F:9049:1F4D (talk) 07:16, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, in general, I would say that this is a too temporary (probably) and localized issue to warrant a whole new filter. Page protection (semi or pending changes) should be the way to work. – PharyngealImplosive7(talk)18:20, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah...I can't see a filter being much better at this than semi-protection. Probably going to be more of a Not done for now. EggRoll97(talk) 04:05, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Could the line !('/' in page_title) & be removed from 803 (hist·log)? I can't think of a scenario where a new user would need to edit someone else's subpage, and I've seen users vandalizing guestbooks and other subpages before. Thanks. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 10:32, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a solution for hitting subpage creations on other users yet. Can non-confirmed editors even do that? Nobody (talk) 11:31, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unregistered users can't create any pages in userspace, including their "own". Registered but not confirmed editors can create pages anywhere in userspace. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:00, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would still need some sort of wider discussion, though maybe not a giant RFC. I'm not convinced this is a good idea. This edit seems to be from a student editor who is (according to their userpage) participating in some sort of translation project. Again, if users want to collaborate on a draft, does it really matter where they put it? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:14, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've been keeping an eye on Filter 733 and I don't think that the one translating clatt that User:OberMegaTrans is running is a good enough reason for not changing it to disallow. But I agree that the change to 803 would need a bigger discussion. Nobody (talk) 05:13, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Prevent non-autoconfirmed creating IP userpages[edit]
Task: Non-autoconfirmed users and IPs should not be able to create userpages that are not of their own IP.
Reason: I discover and nominate at least one such page every week. Most seem to be created in error, and users should be warned to create pages at the right title. A disproportionate number of such pages, however, are spam or vandalism. There is also an LTA who persistently creates userpages for IPv4s starting with "85."
I misremembered then. There were three types of arguments against such a filter: The first fundamentally misunderstands either the problem or the proposal. The second straw mans or slippery slopes my argument as a ban on IP editing. The third is a fallacious sentiment that too much effort would be needed for this. It would only save editor time if I didn't have to deal with these bullshit userpages in the first place - how hard is it to just add the filter and the necessary warning to not create sandboxes for random IPs that aren't your own? Air on White (talk) 03:15, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mind you, IPs already can't create pages except in various talk namespaces, so IP's can't create their own user pages, would make a filter even simpler.
Also I wasn't making any sort of point, I just remembered it - do read the edit notice before discussing the LTA part of this suggestion in any detail though (if it's even significant enough to be relevant).
I propose that 1076 (hist·log), with a filter's description of "Draftified article more than 180 days old", be modified from a threshold of 180 days to 90 days. The notes in the filter say the following:
2020/09/20 - changed from 90 to 120 days - NPP often takes longer than 90 days (bv)
2021/12/10 - change to 180 days (bv)
Since these changes where the filter moved from 90 to 180 days, there has been a RfC on the matter of draftifications and how long after creation is appropriate. It was closed March 24, 2022, and the result was that pages over 90 days should not generally be draftified. As such, it makes sense for the filter to reflect this. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:49, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Task: Drmies left a note at WP:AN linking to Special:Contributions/Learoy4, all of whose edits had the same summary, all of which have been revdelled as Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material. Example, if you're an admin and able to see the revdelled content
Reason: Based on the AN request, I suspect that this summary is being used by other accounts or IPs. Drmies blocked Learoy4 for vandalism, so we won't see further problems from this account.
Diffs: Every edit by Learoy4 has the same summary, so preventing further edits by other accounts or IPs should be trivial. If the wording is changed a little, well, you're the filter maintainers and I'm not; maybe you could find a way to make things better.
Yup. Dozens of them. It's some known LTA case, but I don't care which. I'll keep playing whack-a-vandal while I can. Keep an eye on 1314. —Smalljim16:19, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, just maybe, there's a tiny chance if we can set to disallow or add the summary regex to 52 and disable 1314, but further discussions should not happen here. Codename Noreste 🤔 Talk04:01, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just curious, is there any page where discussion can happen securely (something requiring admin or filter-editor rights just to view) without relying on the email address provided in the edit notice? I've looked at filter 1314's notes, and I can see people saying "To explain why..." and "Is this so-and-so" (as Ingenuity recommends), but nowhere that's being used for discussion. Nyttend (talk) 10:03, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. I've proposed a private wiki for facilitating this kind of discussion before but it did not get much traction. The current canonical venue is always the mailing list. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 10:53, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Task: Prevent the removal of past AfC decline and rejections.
Reason: They're not supposed to be removed by non-reviewers. (There's a invisible comment that says <!-- Important, do not remove this line before article has been created. --> beside the templates)
Looks good, except you forgot exempting new page reviewers in the test wiki code, so maybe make it something like !contains_any(user_groups, 'extendedconfirmed', 'sysop', 'bot', 'patrol')? – PharyngealImplosive7(talk)01:36, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ultimately it doesn't particularly have much effect, since I can't really think of any patroller who isn't extendedconfirmed already. The only ones who would be are bots, who already operate with a bot flag. EggRoll97(talk) 03:02, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This probably needs wider discussion. I'd support it, but I suspect the anti-draftspace people would object. At a minimum, should probably make a post at WT:AFC. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:01, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
meh. There are two situations where the AFC submission tags are being removed. In the first case, the draft-writer is attempting to hide past declines and/or unaware that they shouldn't replace declines with a new submit tag. In the second case, someone (and it could even be the draft creator) is moving the draft to the article space, which meets the before article has been created clause of the hidden comment. Can the filter tell the difference between these two cases? If not, then I do not think it will be a helpful filter (unless it is log-only). Primefac (talk) 13:19, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it can. The !added_lines irlike '#redirect' line is used to not catch drafts that were turned into redirects (likely from a page move). '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 13:26, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose my concern is if someone wants to clean up the draft before they move it to the article space, it will flag it as a violation, no? Primefac (talk) 14:57, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... that's a good point. Maybe the template can say something like "Only remove this template if the draft has been moved into mainspace."? '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 02:14, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can see that a draft is OVERWRITTEN by a different draft. That could cause an issue here. There is no collision detection at Article Wizard, so if you select an existing draft article name, and create a new draft, that will delete any rejection notices with a fresh draft. I've seen different users create new drafts overwriting one another. -- 64.229.90.32 (talk) 07:08, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I expect that trapping conversion to redirect would help with if someone merges a nonnotable-rejection into a broader topic draft that could be notable. the Merge-and-Redirect activity would capture the edit history as a redirect's contribution history. ? -- 64.229.90.32 (talk) 07:08, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Apart from the correct housekeeping removal on acceptance, ideally but not always done by the AFCH script, I see only two reasons an editor, not necessarily the creating editor, will remove the material:
With goodwill, thinking this is correct despite the hidden comment
That wouldn't be in keeping with policy. COI edits are discouraged, but not outright forbidden. We certainly should not be preventing COI editors from removing obvious BLP violations, vandalism, etc. Spicy (talk) 13:31, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Not done for now. EggRoll97 (talk) 04:05, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
