Jump to content

Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Edit filter

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MusikAnimal (talk | contribs) at 17:41, 24 October 2018 (→Template: space File: linking: stale, allow bot to archive). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    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



    Non-autoconfirmed user rapidly reverting edits

    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)[reply]

    So disruption persisted for 34 minutes for this IP address alone. —PaleoNeonate – 02:58, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    29 minutes before 46.150.88.31 was stopped/blocked. —PaleoNeonate – 04:04, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]

    Template: space File: linking

    @PaleoNeonate: There's already a disabled filter for it. Dat GuyTalkContribs 08:15, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @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)[reply]

    Adding "Breitbart" to articles

    • Task: The filter should have a warning for an edit that adds a link to www.breitbart.com. This should apply to all users (except bots). Example warning:

    Yeah, I just copied MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning-dailymail but changed "the Daily Mail" to "Breitbart News". I don't think it matters if the wording is the exact same.

    • No Reason. The RfC discussion didn't suggest that an edit filter is necessary, and the words of the RfC closing are nothing at all like the above, they are: "There is a very clear consensus here that yes, Breitbart should be deprecated in the same way as the Daily Mail. This does not mean Breitbart can no longer be used, but it should not be used, ever, as a reference for facts, due to its unreliability. It can still be used as a source when attributing opinion/viewpoint/commentary." Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:43, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      @Peter Gulutzan: It can still be used as a source when attributing opinion/viewpoint/commentary. Which is why it would only be "warn", similar to the Daily Mail. Read the second-to-last sentence in the warning. SemiHypercube ✎ 00:03, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I see three options so far. (1) Do nothing. (2) Add an edit filter that says what the RfC closer says. (3) Add an edit filter that says what SemiHyperCube says. Any third opinions about those or other options? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:45, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • If Brietbart can be used to attribute opinions/viewpoint/commentary, then it seems more likely that such items might only be found therein, right? The warning box would then tend to prohibit that addition. CrowCaw 20:17, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      That is a point, and I believe similar things could be done with the Daily Mail for including opinions. I'd probably add a sentence to the warning saying that Breitbart would be allowed if one is providing an opinion. SemiHypercube ✎ 22:46, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I support such a filter similar to 869 for the reasons outlined by SemiHypercube. In fact, I think it would be best if 869 was modified to catch all such additions of links that are listed at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources/Perennial sources. On a side note, breitbart.com is currently blacklisted because of heavy sock abuse, maybe an edit filter can be written to only stop non-AC/EC users from adding it so it can be removed from the blacklist. Regards SoWhy 14:55, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Re: "It can still be used as a source when attributing opinion/viewpoint/commentary." Per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 220#Daily Mail RfC there is no such exception for The Daily Mail, and with good reason. We have multiple documented cases where TDM has fabricated opinions -- saying things that the cited source never said -- and multiple documented cases where TDM has plagiarized an opinion piece from another source (often with a few details changed to make it more salacious) and added their own fake byline. So no, The Daily Mail may not be used as a source when attributing opinion/viewpoint/commentary. The high probability of a copyright violation is enough to disallow this use. If anyone has evidence that Breitbart News has done the same sort of things as opposed to simply making stuff up, I would like to see it. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:00, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The Mail's editorial model depends on little more than dishonesty, theft of copyrighted material, and sensationalism so absurd that it crosses into fabrication. Yes, most outlets regularly aggregate other publications' work in the quest for readership and material, and yes, papers throughout history have strived for the grabbiest headlines facts will allow. But what DailyMail.com does goes beyond anything practiced by anything else calling itself a newspaper. In a little more than a year of working in the Mail's New York newsroom, I saw basic journalism standards and ethics casually and routinely ignored. I saw other publications' work lifted wholesale. I watched editors at the most highly trafficked English-language online newspaper in the world publish information they knew to be inaccurate." ---Source: My Year Ripping Off the Web With the Daily Mail Online --Guy Macon (talk) 21:31, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Discogs, LastFm, and RateYourMusic

    • Task: The filter should have a warning for an edit that adds a link to discogs.com, last.fm, or rateyourmusic.com. This should apply to all users (except bots). Example warning:
    Needs wider discussion I personally don't oppose a warn-only filter, but I think we need more input. The linked discussions are rather old and don't mention the use of a filter. Maybe bring this up at WT:IRS? From WP:NOTRSMUSIC it seems the unreliability of these sites is well-established, so I wonder if they should be added to WP:RSP. — MusikAnimal talk 18:26, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Ilovetopaint, it would be great if you could bring this up at the reliable sources noticeboard and specifically mention implementing an edit filter. You might also want to make this new discussion a request for comment to get input from more editors. I see that you've already added Rate Your Music to WP:RSN, but the entry is only supported by one previous discussion, and having a new discussion would clarify the consensus on these sites. Thanks. — Newslinger talk 05:10, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Kumioko

    Ref desk abuse

    Indian film widespread vandalism

    • Task: Disallow edits from IPs with a certain pattern
    • Reason: Persistent vandalism on various Indian films - apparently a "Wikipedia war" between fans of two different actors
    • Disallow, if performed by an IP in article space;
    • Any edit that removes the word "Mohanlal" or adds a pipe to that link (i.e. [7])
    • Any edit that removes the word "Mammootty" and ditto on the piping

    Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 15:18, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Audiovisual Communicators

    • Task: Flag or disallow edits containing the phrase "Audiovisual Communicators", "Raven Broadcasting Corporation" or similar
    • Reason: Said networks are a recurring subject by Bertrand101, a serial hoaxer with a decade worth of habitual disruption. Since most of his edits mention the companies in question, flagging them would al least slow this guy down. Blake Gripling (talk) 11:56, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Edit_filter/Requested&oldid=865560674"