(Redirected from
Wikipedia:EF/R)
| Requested edit filters |
|---|
|
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 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:
|
| Index |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
- 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) - Diffs: A lot.
I've tested possible code for this filter on Test Wiki (see here), and it seems to work well. '''[[ User:CanonNi]]''' ( talk • contribs) 13:12, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- 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)- 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)
- True. I didn't think of that, but one might keep it there just to be safe? – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 01:52, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- Good idea. I've posted a {{ please see}} there. '''[[ User:CanonNi]]''' ( talk • contribs) 03:43, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- 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)- 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)- 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)
- 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)
- Setting the filter to warn rather than disallow as you propose sounds like a good compromise. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 03:14, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- I think it can. The
- 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)
- 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)
- 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
- To conceal prior review history.
- I see this proposal as a benefit provided the exception cases are sorted out. I have no objection to offering a warning, though would prefer outright prohibition. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 07:58, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- Task: Prevent edits common COI edit summaries
- Reason: Reduce the workload of patrollers, help out new users who may be unfamiliar with Wikipedia's policies.
- Diffs: Don't have any on hand right now, but generally use phrases like "I am/We are ______ and am/are updating the article...", etc.
Rusty talk contribs 23:21, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- Would you also object to a warn-only filter? This would certainly be in line with "discouraged, but not outright forbidden". Animal lover |666| 12:33, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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.
- Diffs: See search above.
- Code:The code for this I've been working on is at: /Projectspace Redirect blanking
Nobody ( talk) 15:14, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- 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>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
(Redirected from
Wikipedia:EF/R)
| Requested edit filters |
|---|
|
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 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:
|
| Index |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
- 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) - Diffs: A lot.
I've tested possible code for this filter on Test Wiki (see here), and it seems to work well. '''[[ User:CanonNi]]''' ( talk • contribs) 13:12, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- 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)- 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)
- True. I didn't think of that, but one might keep it there just to be safe? – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 01:52, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- Good idea. I've posted a {{ please see}} there. '''[[ User:CanonNi]]''' ( talk • contribs) 03:43, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- 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)- 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)- 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)
- 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)
- Setting the filter to warn rather than disallow as you propose sounds like a good compromise. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 03:14, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- I think it can. The
- 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)
- 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)
- 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
- To conceal prior review history.
- I see this proposal as a benefit provided the exception cases are sorted out. I have no objection to offering a warning, though would prefer outright prohibition. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 07:58, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- Task: Prevent edits common COI edit summaries
- Reason: Reduce the workload of patrollers, help out new users who may be unfamiliar with Wikipedia's policies.
- Diffs: Don't have any on hand right now, but generally use phrases like "I am/We are ______ and am/are updating the article...", etc.
Rusty talk contribs 23:21, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- Would you also object to a warn-only filter? This would certainly be in line with "discouraged, but not outright forbidden". Animal lover |666| 12:33, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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.
- Diffs: See search above.
- Code:The code for this I've been working on is at: /Projectspace Redirect blanking
Nobody ( talk) 15:14, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- 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>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