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:
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
Racist labeling of political leaders and historical figures
Here are the two most recent examples:
This has been happening for several months, perhaps back to last year. I've seen various combinations of the wording "white supremacist" and "racist " edited into political articles, both currently serving individuals and historical figures. These would be edits made after the article was already created. Not limited by geographical area, time period, living or deceased office holders. Can we create a bot that blocks these? And once created, can we update it if a new similar term begins happening? — Maile (talk) 22:40, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
- I just blocked Special:Contributions/2600:1700:12E1:A090:0:0:0:0/64 for a year as it appears every edit from there has been junk for a long time. That covers several examples of what you describe although I don't know if there are more from other IPs. Johnuniq (talk) 23:21, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
- Well, that's helpful. Thanks. I don't know if it's been this one IP or not. But I can date this phenomenon to beginning after the BLM events of the last year or two. For whatever reason, one or more editors have been motivated to label BLP and deceased individuals, or geographical areas as, racist, by one term or another. — Maile (talk) 23:59, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Maile66: Started testing at 1014 (hist · log). Just checking for "racist" or "supremacist" for now. I'll add a check for biographies later. Any other words? FYI, I doubt this could ever be refined to the point where it's possible to disallow. Yes, all filters have false positives, but I'm worried about what message we'll be perceived as sending if we stop "X was the target of racist taunts on the field", etc. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:38, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Suffusion of Yellow: no other words come to mind. I keep hoping this type of editing will fade on its own, but I doubt so in my lifetime, because a lot of it is fed by national-international media reports. Not necessarily limited to the United States, or any other country. — Maile (talk) 22:44, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Maile66: I added both words to 189 (hist · log) (tag-only). This is actually really common; see the log of 1014 (hist · log). I still might try to work out a disallowing filter if possible. I just don't feel comfortable with stopping
Senator McSenatorface resigned after admitting to sending hundreds of racist texts...<ref><ref><ref>
. It looks like we're whitewashing. So maybe I'll just disallow very small edits without refs, e.g. Special:Diff/1053952115 and leave 189 to tag the rest. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:43, 7 November 2021 (UTC)- @Suffusion of Yellow: Understood. My request here is more about the concern the past year or two of a pattern of adding blatant labeling to existing articles, usually in the opening sentences of a lead, and begin more or less, " ...(name) is a racist and white supremacist ... " without any sourcing indicating it as factual. I've never seen, "" ...(name) is a racist and black supremacist ... " Or pick any color inbetween. — Maile (talk) 23:55, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
- Well, here's one. But of course it's not as common. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 18:55, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Suffusion of Yellow: Understood. My request here is more about the concern the past year or two of a pattern of adding blatant labeling to existing articles, usually in the opening sentences of a lead, and begin more or less, " ...(name) is a racist and white supremacist ... " without any sourcing indicating it as factual. I've never seen, "" ...(name) is a racist and black supremacist ... " Or pick any color inbetween. — Maile (talk) 23:55, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Maile66: I added both words to 189 (hist · log) (tag-only). This is actually really common; see the log of 1014 (hist · log). I still might try to work out a disallowing filter if possible. I just don't feel comfortable with stopping
- @Suffusion of Yellow: no other words come to mind. I keep hoping this type of editing will fade on its own, but I doubt so in my lifetime, because a lot of it is fed by national-international media reports. Not necessarily limited to the United States, or any other country. — Maile (talk) 22:44, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Userpage spam filter
There seems to be a bunch of userpage spammers going around. I am requesting an edit filter that disallows creation of these pages when there's enough links (e.g. 100 external links). – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 11:18, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
- Since I have a list of examples, here you go:
- Ccosmos1 (talk · contribs) (filtered)
- Counopass (talk · contribs) (xwiki)
- Logs for "Couponglist1"
- Logs for "Dodothidnd"
- Logs for "Japansususu01"
- Logs for "Joenradno"
- Mangetts (talk · contribs) (2nd edit, deleted)
- Logs for "No1highschool"
- Logs for "OKdudes"
- Logs for "Ssuodnkkd"
- Logs for "Yesgopuzzi"
-- zzuuzz (talk) 11:58, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Zzuuzz: And again. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 07:25, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Possible strange widespread vandalism of talk pages
![](https://web.archive.org/web/20220210165833im_/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ea/Purple_arrow_down.svg/20px-Purple_arrow_down.svg.png)
In the past day I've seen (and reverted) edits on three talk pages: on Talk:Trivia, on Talk:Messenger, and on Talk: Google Ngram Viewer.
They're unrelated and come from unrelated IP addresses, but all create a new discussion with a single-word title and a single word of content. And if I saw three of them on my watchlist there are probably thousands of others. Any thoughts? Thanks, Dan Bloch (talk) 19:05, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
- The only tool which can be relevant here is the edit filter; the more examples you can find, the easier it will be to stop this. 2A03:C5C0:207F:22C2:F8CF:DD87:F2C:49C7 (talk) 19:13, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
- Weren't article talk pages enabled for logged-out mobile web editors recently? I wonder if what we're seeing is just the kind of crud that appears in the "comments" section of ... any webpage with a "comments" section. I'm not seeing many high-quality comments here, of any length. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:08, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks! That's almost certainly it. Many of the edits from your "recent changes" query look like the ones I'm seeing ([1], [2], [3], ...) and it would explain why the articles and IP addresses are all unrelated, and also why the edits have signatures. Dan Bloch (talk) 20:21, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
- Found the task, it was phab:T293946. Looks like the talk page link was enabled in mid-November, making the pages easier to find. Wondering if that was such a good idea, given that banners are hidden and edit notices are nonexistent. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:34, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
- Yeah, I suspect this is the cause. I'm seeing the typical mix of spam, random one word comments, and totally offtopc comment (eg [4]). -- Asartea Talk | Contribs 20:38, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
- If we do want to create a filter for drive-by mobile comments (say, disallowing comments under 25 bytes), remember that the only message that a mobile editor will see is "The topic can't be added due to an unknown error." There's no possibility of a custom message, or indeed any message that mentions that the edit was stopped by a filter. See phab:T281544. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:48, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
- Oh dear. Yet another failing of MobileFrontend to adequately display information to editors. firefly ( t · c ) 20:57, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
- adds it to the pile of them. But seriously, wasn't AF not displaying supposed to be fixed for the Android app? The fact this is now happening suggests it wasn't that fixed, or whatever they did they special cased it to the (Article) namespace only? -- Asartea Talk | Contribs 08:24, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
- I think this is coming from mobile browser clients, not the App. Article talk pages were recently made visible to anonymous mobile web editors. I imagine some readers see the "talk" link, and do what many Internet commenters do - leave an irrelevant message just to show the world they were there. firefly ( t · c ) 09:21, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
- adds it to the pile of them. But seriously, wasn't AF not displaying supposed to be fixed for the Android app? The fact this is now happening suggests it wasn't that fixed, or whatever they did they special cased it to the (Article) namespace only? -- Asartea Talk | Contribs 08:24, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
- Oh dear. Yet another failing of MobileFrontend to adequately display information to editors. firefly ( t · c ) 20:57, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
- If we do want to create a filter for drive-by mobile comments (say, disallowing comments under 25 bytes), remember that the only message that a mobile editor will see is "The topic can't be added due to an unknown error." There's no possibility of a custom message, or indeed any message that mentions that the edit was stopped by a filter. See phab:T281544. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:48, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
- I noticed a big increase in such contributions from about 27 November. Earlier examples: [5] [6] (unsigned) [7] [8] [9]. Certes (talk) 22:53, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
- ... And now we have talk page vandalism? – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 01:33, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
- Thread convergence: those edits have summaries of "Fixed typo" with a significant size change. Certes (talk) 12:42, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
- The "fixed typo" and "added content" summaries are there because it's a suggestion in the mobile edit summary box. Usually not fixing a typo. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 13:15, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
- Thread convergence: those edits have summaries of "Fixed typo" with a significant size change. Certes (talk) 12:42, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
- ... And now we have talk page vandalism? – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 01:33, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks! That's almost certainly it. Many of the edits from your "recent changes" query look like the ones I'm seeing ([1], [2], [3], ...) and it would explain why the articles and IP addresses are all unrelated, and also why the edits have signatures. Dan Bloch (talk) 20:21, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
- Weren't article talk pages enabled for logged-out mobile web editors recently? I wonder if what we're seeing is just the kind of crud that appears in the "comments" section of ... any webpage with a "comments" section. I'm not seeing many high-quality comments here, of any length. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:08, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
- I'll add some examples if this helps:
- Completely irrelevant, using as a forum (stuff like "hi"), etc: [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17]
- Random and nonsensical: [18], [19]
- Vandalism of talk page templates: [20], [21]
- Creating a random talk page that doesn't have a main article: [22]
- Related but not about improvement of article: [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29] (thought the article subject owns the article)
- Creating an article in a talk page(?): [30] (IPs can freely create talk pages) – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 11:53, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) I agree that the ones that are super-short and/or contain only "hi" messages, like this one from March at Talk:Quantum mechanics, should have an edit filter. Actually, I think I've seen similar edits in mainspace, but I don't recall where. Let's see what an EFM thinks about this. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:07, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
- Danbloch, Suffusion of Yellow, I'm responsible for the proposal. Some level of crap was expected anyway, but it's not entirely trivial to determine whether it's an epidemic or anything like that. I'm not unsympathetic towards disabling editing for anons altogether (it's hard to collaborate with a fleeting IP), but as long as they are editors they need talk page access. The examples indicate some users think this is Twitter or something. A few appear to be mistaking Discussion Tools for a search engine.
Based on the examples I suggest creating an edit filter for additions from mobile anons in talk where the edit summary contains "new section" and less than 200 bytes were added. Set it to just log first. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 23:52, 6 January 2022 (UTC) - Hi y'all – it's helpful to see the edits you are encountering on talk pages and to know this trend is pronounced enough for you to consider taking action to mitigate it.
- I* recognize I'm a bit late to this discussion. Tho, I thought you would value knowing how the Foundation is thinking about this uptick in destructive behavior.
- We share the hypothesis @Suffusion of Yellow noted above that this increase in vandalistic talk page edits is a consequence of exposing the
Talk
link to anons on mobile on 15 November 2021. - We are are in the process analyzing the impact of making
Talk
visible to anons on mobile is impacting metrics like: talk page revert rate, talk page bounce rate and talk page page views. - In the coming weeks, we will share a summary of the analysis mentioned in "2." so that we can collectively discuss what actions we should consider experimenting with in response. I'm thinking we'll start this discussion on WP:VPR where we last talked about this.
- We share the hypothesis @Suffusion of Yellow noted above that this increase in vandalistic talk page edits is a consequence of exposing the
- Alright, if any new thoughts/questions/ideas emerge between now an "3." please ping us here.
- *I'm Peter. I work as the product manger for the Editing Team who, along with @OVasileva (WMF) (the product manager for the Readers Web Team) is investigating this. PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 17:43, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
New users requesting edits on "Name of page you are requesting an edit to" at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection
- Task: This filter task is to warn and tagged new users of making edit requests. .
- Page: Wikipedia:Requests for page protection
- User groups: Unregistered users and new users
- Reason: This filter is needed because there are many newcomers and IP making too many requests to edit "Name of page you are requesting an edit to" at WP:RPP.
- Diffs: Revision 1063486393 (Diff), Revision 1063553303 (Diff), and Revision 1063582091 (Diff).
Vitaium (talk) 03:57, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
- We should probably link to the last discussion, Wikipedia:Edit_filter/Requested/Archive_18#Blank_RfPP_requests, which seems to mostly agree. The page would be Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Edit. I tend to think that MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning-empty-edit-request could be used, but I'm not sure if it needs some tweaking, or a new message, related to the fact that the request might not be empty (even if the title is). -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:44, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Addition of external links to body sections
- Task: Tags (and maybe someday warns) edits introducing external links to article body sections
- Reason: Violates WP:ELPOINTS #2
- Diffs: Special:Diff/627038050, Special:Diff/641871211, Special:Diff/808221327, and Special:Diff/983474406
{{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:14, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
(I'm not too familiar with edit filters, so this may have been brought up before; if so, apologies, and just give me a pointer.) One of the most common forms of inappropriate editing we see from new editors is the addition of hyperlinks within body text. Would it be possible to use an edit filter to track this and maybe someday help guide users to use a reference instead?
In technical terms, we would want this to tag all mainspace edits that introduce a URL to a non-Wikimedia site and that do not fall into one of these exception buckets:
- Anything within a template (includes stuff like {{External media}} and infoboxes that link a website)
- Anything within a table (see WP:ELLIST)
- Anything within a reference
- Anything within the last section of an article, or a section that contains any of "Reference", "Source", "Further", "Reading", "Work", "Publication", "Citation", "Cited", "External", "Link", or "Note"
Does that sound feasible? Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:14, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Sdkb: I don't think we should warn people for this. It's basically a formatting mistake to write
Some fact.[https://some.ref]
instead ofSome fact.<ref>https://some.ref</ref>
. We can't warn newbies for everything, or they'll just ignore everything we say, or worse give up and go to a more user-friendly site. As to creating a filter at all, even a log-only or tag-only filter, well I won't say "impossible", just "incredibly hacky if possible". If I can think of a clever way, I'll try something. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:21, 15 January 2022 (UTC)- @Suffusion of Yellow, thanks for the reply. Re
We can't warn newbies for everything
, yeah; I think the main issue is that our tools for warning are too blunt—all we can do is have them encounter a big notice when they try to publish, rather than having a friendly "want to turn this into a reference? We don't allow inline external links" prompt pop up in a box next to the paragraph as soon as someone tries to add an inline external link. See WP:Making editing easier 2021. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 23:29, 15 January 2022 (UTC)- You mean a Web worker constantly checking as you type, like what we already have for JS and CSS pages? That would be nifty. But a major project. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:49, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Suffusion of Yellow, thanks for the reply. Re
Akane Yamaguchi spam
- Task: Prevent newly created accounts from spamming the user talk namespace with vague requests to clean up Maureen Wroblewitz and Akane Yamaguchi
- Reason: Per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Haiyenslna.
- Diffs: [31] [32] [33] etc. there's loads
These sockpuppets will spam the user talk of as many recently active editors they can find with requests to improve Akane Yamaguchi and the spam is getting to be quite disruptive. I just blocked Semwq, then immediately after that one Zasjd. Would it at all be possible to disallow new users from doing this rapid spam? I don't believe I've ever made a request here before so apologies in advance if this is not feasible or worth the time to create. Sro23 (talk) 07:09, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
- I've been spammed twice over the course of two years, very annoying. I was thinking about proposing this myself. The easiest way to implement this would be to create a filter for new users using the string "Akane Yamaguchi" (The spam for Maureen Wroblewitz seems to be historical and no longer relevant) that would either disallow the edit to be made or would be logged to alert admins. Hemiauchenia (talk) 08:58, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Sro23 and Hemiauchenia: See 1182 (hist · log). Log-only, but will set to disallow at some point.. If this user proves to be adaptable, I have another way I might go about this, but keeping it simple for now. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:04, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Removal of Counterpunch from Filter 869
- Task: The urls being counterpunch.org and counterpunch.com
- Reason: There are significant concerns regarding the validity of the previous RfC, which appears to have attracted at least 6-7 sockpuppets, found after its close. It has led to this discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Rerun Counterpunch RFC?, seeking a new one and started by the closer of the RfC themselves. In the meantime, the filter is inappropriate for this site.
Tayi Arajakate Talk 14:56, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
- I've opined in that discussion, but with the closer of the discussion (David Gerard) also feeling the discussion isn't robust due to sockpuppetry this seems fairly clear-cut I think. So
Done ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:19, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
- David Gerard is now saying that the RfC is still valid so I guess undo? Tayi Arajakate Talk 19:37, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
- I have no clue what's going on at this point. There seems to be an edit war ongoing at WP:RSP/WP:DEPS etc, and I don't want to have the dispute carry over to an edit filter's contents which would be quite disruptive, so I'm going to hold off on any further edits to the filter personally. I will say the situation is highly confusing at this point, with everyone seemingly agreeing the previous discussion is tainted, but not agreeing on whether to still class the source as deprecated, and now a new RfC is started re whether the source should be deprecated. I'd have suggested figuring out the status of the source at WP:AN, but with the new RfC I don't know if that's a suitable path anymore. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:11, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
- David Gerard is now saying that the RfC is still valid so I guess undo? Tayi Arajakate Talk 19:37, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Block addition of __INDEX__ in mainspace
- Task: Block editors from adding __INDEX__ within mainspace
- Reason: __INDEX__ is a magic word instructing search engines to index the page its placed on. As all pages in mainspace except those not yet patrolled by NPP are automatically marked for indexing there is no usecase for ever having to use this magic word in mainspace, and adding it does nothing to the article except add a few extra unncesary bytes (and help see COI editors).
- Diffs: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Country_FM_Rwanda&diff=prev&oldid=1065005298&diffmode=source
-- Asartea Talk | Contribs 19:33, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- __INDEX__ anywhere is probably weird enough to reasonably trigger a filter. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:47, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- ...except when discussing __INDEX__! Certes (talk) 16:08, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, I could see a case for adding a filter to check for any additions anywhere where someone adds
__INDEX__
without surrounding<nowiki>
which warns, but since in mainspace you aren't discussing it and it doesn't do anything its probably fine to just flatout block. -- Asartea Talk | Contribs 16:59, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- About 1000 articles use the word (sample), so we may want a purge once further additions have been prevented. Certes (talk) 17:27, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- Okay, having been poking:
- There are 187 uses of INDEX in Draft: which aren't nowikied. These should all be wasteful, so it can probably get blocked
- There are 282 uses in User: and User talk:, which I think are all reasonable and should be allowed.
- There are 697 uses in (Article) which aren't nowikied, and none which are. These are all a waste and probably should be blocked
- There are 18 uses in all other namespaces which aren't nowikied, at least some of which are reasonable, but also some which aren't.
- (all of these results can be checked by going to
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?sort=last_edit_desc&search=insource%3Aindex+insource%3A%2F__INDEX__%2F+-insource%3A%22%3Cnowiki%3E+index+nowiki%22&title=Special%3ASearch&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1
and selecting the namespace(s). Annoyingly enough I can't just post the urls as external links cause MediaWiki tries to be smart and breaks them (also note I substracted one from the all other namespaces count, since I have an open AWB perm request which contains INDEX in a search url, which I just realised I also need to fix).
- (all of these results can be checked by going to
- So overall I think that __INDEX__ can just be flatout blocked in (Article), Draft: and Draft talk:, allowed in User: and User talk:, and that insertions of __INDEX__ where there are no <nowiki> tags surrounding it in all other namespaces should output a warning message. For bonus fun there is also {{Index}}, but I think that can be handled at a template level with a switch based on namespace. -- Asartea Talk | Contribs 17:28, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- Many of the articles have recently been indexed, e.g. List of Acts of the 1st Session of the 42nd Parliament of the United Kingdom and many similar lists of UK acts. I also noticed {{INDEX}} but was unsure whether to mention it. It seems to be unused. I sneaked in a URL by searching for _\_INDEX__. Certes (talk) 17:35, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- Per the doc page of {{INDEX}}
__INDEX__
only does anything in User: and User talk:, so BEANS shouldn't be an issue. I'm currently writing a patch to make the template hardfail with warning in all other namespaces. -- Asartea Talk | Contribs 17:39, 22 January 2022 (UTC)- I'd like to see mainspace and draftspace tagged rather than blocked (for now)...let's see what sorts of folks think they should be adding it. GeneralNotability (talk) 19:44, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- @GeneralNotability I get what you mean, but every time its added it will need to be removed at some point, which adds volunteer time. I'm fine with tagging for now, but long term I'm going to advocate for blocking in the namespaces I mentioned above (Article, Draft, Draft talk) -- Asartea Talk | Contribs 19:51, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- TPER filed at Template talk:INDEX#Template-protected edit request on 22 January 2022, so once that gets merged that fixes the {{INDEX}} issue. -- Asartea Talk | Contribs 19:45, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- I'd like to see mainspace and draftspace tagged rather than blocked (for now)...let's see what sorts of folks think they should be adding it. GeneralNotability (talk) 19:44, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- Per the doc page of {{INDEX}}
- Many of the articles have recently been indexed, e.g. List of Acts of the 1st Session of the 42nd Parliament of the United Kingdom and many similar lists of UK acts. I also noticed {{INDEX}} but was unsure whether to mention it. It seems to be unused. I sneaked in a URL by searching for _\_INDEX__. Certes (talk) 17:35, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Asartea: See 1183 (hist · log). This isn't really disruptive and it has no effect on the reader, and doesn't actually enable spam, so I don't think we should be disallowing. But I agree with GeneralNotability that it might be worth seeing
what sorts of folks think they should be adding it
. Right now the filter is really broad; logging all uses of INDEX and NOINDEX in all namespaces, by all users. It might be worth excluding users with (say) more than 1000 edits, but I want to see what it catches for now. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 00:09, 23 January 2022 (UTC)- @Suffusion of Yellow could you exclude user and user talk? Those are the only two in which it actually has a effect, so I don't think we need to log those, since its fine to add there. -- Asartea Talk | Contribs 08:22, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
- Still makes sense to log them if you assume that a certain group of problematic editors (COI) is using them. Regards SoWhy 10:10, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
- I excluded non-extendedconfirmed editors in userspace. That's already covered by 930 (hist · log). Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:58, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
- Oh also @Suffusion of Yellow alerting you to the existence of MediaWiki talk:Robots.txt#COIBot report, which if done should remove the need for a COIBot exclusion. -- Asartea Talk | Contribs 20:04, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
- I excluded non-extendedconfirmed editors in userspace. That's already covered by 930 (hist · log). Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:58, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
- Still makes sense to log them if you assume that a certain group of problematic editors (COI) is using them. Regards SoWhy 10:10, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Suffusion of Yellow could you exclude user and user talk? Those are the only two in which it actually has a effect, so I don't think we need to log those, since its fine to add there. -- Asartea Talk | Contribs 08:22, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Persistent addition of incorrect soundtrack credits
- Task: To prevent adding the name Mohammed Shanooj to Malayalam film articles.
- Reason: There is this IP hopper who is persistently adding incorrect soundtrack credit in film articles, probably for self-promotion because there's no other reason why they should do it. This person managed to obtain circular references for Meppadiyan[34] and Hridayam[35] that copied his own hijacked version of the article and cited it back into the same articles. If you google his name there's actually an IMDb page and other pages for this composer, but if you look deeper you can see that he's a teenager who has uploaded few amateur music videos on YouTube (which is not original but altered version of existing works). I guess what he's trying to do is obtaining circular references mentioning his name as the composer of notable films so that he can promote himself as a music composer and create composer's profile (like the one in IMDb) at popular music websites that still needs more sources for verification. ToBeFree advised edit filter since their IP range is too large to block.
- Diffs: [36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45].
2409:4073:2094:FF07:3452:920C:D85A:CFEF (talk) 14:03, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for requesting this! Looks like a good task for an edit filter, as the person won't be interested in circumventing the filter by using a different name. Catching them using a filter should be simple. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:42, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Done I have an existing private filter that handles similar types of self-promotion. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:10, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Prevent new/unregistered user(s) from editing featured articles and featured lists
- Task: This filter's task is to prevent new/anonymous users from editing featured article and featured lists. This filter should be applied to new/anonymous users and all featured articles and featured lists (including Today's featured article and Today's featured list), these pages are tagged with {{Featured article}} and/or {{Featured list}}.
- Reason: Because featured articles and featured lists often appeared in the main page, they are often a target for newcomers and IPs to vandalized articles which is prohibited in Wikipedia.
- Diffs: Revision 1069409361 (Diff), Revision 1064971775 (Diff), and Revision 1069327548 (Diff)
Vitaium (talk) 06:39, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Vitaium: That would require community consensus, first. And I think such a proposal would have a WP:SNOWball's chance of succeeding, but even if it did, mass protection would be the way to go. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:25, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Copy and pasted vandalism
- Task: Disallow copying parts of the interface and pasting them unmodified
- Reason: this will prevent some vandalism
- Diffs: [46]