Jump to content

Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested/Archive 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21

Special:AbuseFilter/627

Can the phrase "contact us" be added to this filter? Contact information is almost never appropriate to insert to an article, and I would have expected a page such as User:Myhomewatch/sandbox to have triggered this filter for containing this phrase. Mori Calliope fan talk 18:27, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

That might be a little tricky. Contact us frequently appears inside of references (why it does or whether or not it ever should is another matter). OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:51, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
I wonder if negative lookbehinds/aheads could be used? Refs are tricky to parse, though. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 04:09, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

EF 189 and ccnorm/norm

189 (hist · log)
This filter should probably match a libelous edit like this: Special:Diff/1088504111. I saw ccnorm from mw:Extension:AbuseFilter/Rules format#Functions, and I think it can be used for this? Thanks. 0xDeadbeef 06:22, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

ccnorm() can be wrapped around the added_lines and removed_lines. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 04:06, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Shouting outside of mainspace

–LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:01, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

This would be quite easy to implement. Filter 50 could have "page_namespace == 0 &" fully removed, and MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning-shouting could have "for both articles and discussion pages" changed to "for all pages". I suggest utilizing filter 1 to test this, log-only. Pinging @TheresNoTime, if you're interested? 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 02:48, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Hmmm, I've added it to Special:AbuseFilter/1, but I think this might be a fairly active/false-positive heavy idea. We'll see — TheresNoTime (talk • she/her) 10:25, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Most results so far have been positive, so I’m hopeful! 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 17:57, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

0xDeadbeef 09:16, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

@0xDeadbeef I don't think there's any way to check if a linked article is in a category so I think the only way to do this with edit filters would be to have a manually updated list which is probably not practical given the size alone. PhantomTech[talk] 09:34, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Based on similar experience with another film genre, such vandals may include one favourite name (along with others) in most edits. Could you identify such a name, without revealing it here? Then, rather than check for the whole category, the filter could trigger whenever the vandal inserts the dominant member between the welcoming brackets of the receptive article. Certes (talk) 11:18, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Here's where I insert a "titular character" joke (for gender balance, since there are occasional complaints about too many dick jokes). 15:29, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
This could also just be a bot that runs on toolforge. 0xDeadbeef 11:51, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Done. Contact me privately if you're interested in details. PhantomTech[talk] 04:44, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Account Simodmart*

maybe more ?

Simodmart is also indefinitely blocked on ar.WP Supertoff (talk) 21:36, 3 August 2022 (UTC) (Sysop and Abuse Filter on fr.WP)

@Supertoff The {{user}} template pings so I won't be too detailed but I don't think a disallow filter is the best solution. Your list of accounts appears to be complete. PhantomTech[talk] 22:38, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
I forgot the ping... I asked it because 3 of them were created in the past 2 days. Supertoff (talk) 08:42, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
@Supertoff I sent you an email with my reasoning for why I don't think the disallow filter is the best option and something that should help you deal with the user. PhantomTech[talk] 08:55, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
@PhantomTech I understand and tks for the query. I made an RCU on frwiki to check if there are other accounts in case of. Supertoff (talk) 09:06, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Requested import from testwiki

I've been working on and testing testwiki:Special:AbuseFilter/254. I think it's probably ready to be tested as log only after a quick check from someone else. It could compliment the suggested changes at #Offensive edit summary, catching some possible bypasses. Some time in log only will help determine if the filter can be beneficial, what actions are appropriate, and if any additional exclusions are needed. PhantomTech[talk] 23:42, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

@PhantomTech, a few thoughts:
  • you should probably add action=="edit" as the first condition
  • you could use sumary_section_title := get_matches("/\*(.+?)\*/", "/*Section title*/ new comment")[1]; to get the section title from the summary (evaluates to false if nothing is found)
  • !(A|B) is equivalent to !A & !B, but the latter stops the test before evaluating B; if (old_wikitext rlike section_regex), which is a little expensive, finds the summary_section_title in old_wikitext, (new_wikitext rlike section_regex) won't need to be executed. Ponor (talk) 13:17, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
For the last point: If A|B doesn't short circuit, this would be a bug in the language, not a bug in PhantomTech's code. In other programming languages, both expressions would be equivalent. A being true will prevent B from being ran. 0xDeadbeef 13:51, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
You're right. Got confused by edit filter's negative logic somewhere along the way. Striking out. Thanks! Ponor (talk) 14:32, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
@Ponor Thank you, I added the action check, but not the regex based section title. I think using strpos and substr might have better performance over using regex, but I haven't tested it so I'm not sure. I'm not opposed to the change if it there isn't an actual performance difference or if people feel that it improves readability and that justifies any potential performance cost. PhantomTech[talk] 21:52, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Offensive edit summary

Shouldn't an existing filter catch this? Certes (talk) 10:23, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Special:AbuseFilter/384 is probably the most relevant filter. It doesn't check summaries but I'm not sure if there's a reason for that. PHANTOMTECH (talk) 19:31, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
@PhantomTech, I think it's because it would FP for section edits that contain profanities. Someguy1221 commented in the notes about this. Perhaps this could be achieved through excluding hits if the profanities are found in the old wikitext or added ones? 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 03:48, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
@EpicPupper Looks like you're right. Section names in edit summaries use a specific format so another option is to check if the bad_word regex is not in a section (a simple but imperfect solution is adding (?!.+?\*\/) to the end) or to only run the test against the edit summary if it is not a section edit by replacing line 9 with:
(added_lines irlike bad_word | (
    !(summary irlike "\/\* .+? \*\/") &
    summary irlike bad_word &
    !(summary irlike dick_name)
)) &
PhantomTech[talk] 04:24, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Looks good to me! 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 04:26, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. Alternatively, if it's not too costly, you could create a variable which contains the summary with any /* ... */ removed and check that, to catch an edit summary like "/* Legitimate header */ Redacted is a butthole". (I'm not familiar enough with EF syntax to code that.) Certes (talk) 12:24, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
This should do that
(added_lines irlike bad_word | (
    section_start := strpos(summary, "/* ");
    section_end := strpos(summary, " */");
    if (section_start === 0 & section_end > section_start)
        then (summary_prime := substr(summary, section_end + 3))
        else (summary_prime := summary) end;
    summary_prime irlike bad_word &
    !(summary_prime irlike dick_name)
)) &
PhantomTech[talk] 21:40, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Made a small change. PhantomTech[talk] 02:52, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
@Certes, PhantomTech, and EpicPupper: This edit was caught by 1086 (hist · log) ("Disruptive edit summaries"), but they clicked past the warning. The question is, should 1086 be set to disallow? Out of the last 50 hits that saved, [1], [2], [3] are the only ones that weren't reverted. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:57, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
@Suffusion of Yellow I'm not sure. Thinking about it, a determined vandal will just change the edit summary to either bypass the filter or to not be a problem. Even if they correct the edit summary, that doesn't stop the edit itself from being problematic and so regardless of their choice a disallow won't stop a determined vandal. In addition, this filter's detection of bad edits to articles depends entirely on the edit summaries, any edit caught only by this filter could be made with a meaningless edit summary and that takes away an indicator to rc patrollers that it is a bad edit.
Disallows are useful when they're very effective at detecting the goal behavior, for example editing another user's user page, but when the goal is any kind of vandalism there is a tradeoff because some edits will be stopped but others will be made in a potentially less obvious way. So I'm not sure what the best solution is for this case but a warn + rate limit triggered short temporary block would be nice, though we can't do that currently.
I know there are currently disallow filters for generic vandalism but since this filter's conditions are based only on edit summary, I'm not sure that the same justification someone would use for setting those filters to disallow could apply to this one. PhantomTech[talk] 00:03, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Prevent manual addition of automatic mediawiki categories

  • Task: Prevent manual addition of categories listed at Special:TrackingCategories, which should only be automatically added by the mediawiki software.
  • Reason: These categories should never be manually added, as adding them manually clutters up tracking categories even after the issues with the page are resolved.
  • Diffs: One of those categories had to be removed Special:Diff/1063705433 here

--Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:55, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Unarchiving. Please test with this code:
!("confirmed" in user_groups) &
added_lines irlike "\[\[\s*Category\s*:\s*(Hidden categories|Pages with too many expensive parser function calls|Pages where post-expand include size is exceeded|Pages containing omitted template arguments|Noindexed pages|Indexed pages|Articles with missing files|Templates with missing files|Pages with missing files|Pages where expansion depth is exceeded|Pages with malformed coordinate tags|Pages with script errors|Pages with score rendering errors|Pages where node count is exceeded|MassMessage delivery lists|Files with no machine-readable source|Files with no machine-readable author|Files with no machine-readable description|Files with no machine-readable license|Pages using duplicate arguments in template calls|Pages with unknown globe value|Pages with invalid region value|Pages with unknown type of coordinates|Pages with syntax highlighting errors|Pages using the Graph extension|Pages with broken graphs|Pages with reference errors|Pages with obsolete Vega 1.0 graphs|Pages with disallowed DISPLAYTITLE modifications|Pages with math errors|Articles with math errors|Pages using the Kartographer extension|Pages with broken maps|Pages with unresolved properties|Pages with template loops|Articles with math render errors|Files with no machine-readable patent|Redirects connected to a Wikidata item|Pages using the EasyTimeline extension|User pages with reference errors|Talk pages with reference errors|Pages with TemplateStyles errors|Pages where the unstrip size limit is exceeded|Pages with unreviewed translations|TemplateStyles stylesheets with errors|Pages that use a deprecated format of the chem tags|Pages using deprecated score attributes|Pages using deprecated source tags|Pages using deprecated enclose attributes|Pages that use a deprecated format of the math tags|User pages with script errors|Pages with non-numeric formatnum arguments|Templates with math errors|Pages where the unstrip depth limit is exceeded|Pages using the Score extension)\s*\]\]"
I used PetScan to get a list of the 55 categories; if new ones are added, they can be added to the filter later. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 01:55, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
@Ahecht: Logging at 1213 (hist · log). Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:39, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Disallow creation of redirects from User/User talk root page to Main Page

  • Task: Disallow the creation of redirects from root User/User talk pages to Main Page (or any other page that suppresses the (Redirect from ...) verbiage). Applies to all editors, applies only to edits on root User/User talk pages.
  • Reason: Violation of WP:UP, interferes with interface, makes reaching an editor to contact them or collaborate with them difficult.
  • Diffs: 1 2, 3

—Locke Cole • t • c 18:25, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I will admit to doing that once (quite a while ago, I had a content dispute spillover onto my talkpage, and couldn't even edit it without hitting edit conflicts over and over). Tripping a filter would have let me know that what I was about to do was a really stupid idea. So I'll add a diff here
4 Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 04:18, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
@Locke Cole Is there a list of pages that suppress "Redirect from"? You mention Main Page and I assume the special namespace does it too but it's not something I pay specific attention to. PHANTOMTECH (talk) 04:32, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
@PhantomTech: I assume the special namespace does it too apparently redirects to Special pages are not allowed by design: User:SPUI/random Is there a list of pages that suppress "Redirect from"? Not that I'm aware of, there is some discussion at this BOT request page about how the notice is suppressed. Ideally we wouldn't suppress the redirect notice at all, but I assumed (perhaps incorrectly?) there was a legitimate reason for Main Page to have that turned off. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:42, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Here's a filter for it. This catches any redirect from user root or user talk root to any destination outside of either of those two places. It does not catch a soft redirect. I can't move it here for testing because I don't have the permission. PHANTOMTECH (talk) 05:57, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
I would honestly just restrict it to redirects to Main Page. Other redirects are annoying, but produce the expected "(Redirected from...)" link that allows you to get back to the user page. Unless there's a consensus for disallowing them all, which I am not opposed to (because: WP:BEANS). —Locke Cole • t • c 15:55, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
If this is going to expand to not allowing redirects outside of ns2/3 at all: I don't think this should apply to ns2. — xaosflux Talk 15:54, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Would you be fine with not allowing redirects to just Main Page from 2/3? —Locke Cole • t • c 15:57, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
As a note, I have no preference to how restrictive this should be other than redirects from root user talk to Main Page should not be allowed at a minimum, it just wasn't a big step up from that to what I made on testwiki so that's the filter I made. PHANTOMTECH (talk) 19:50, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
I know we're all volunteers here, but is there any timetable for when requests are acted on, or what does the process look like? —Locke Cole • t • c 19:57, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
@Locke Cole: Logging at 1210 (hist · log). Sorry for the delay. There just don't seem to be many active EFMs right now. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 18:16, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
It's all good, I was worried about it getting archived more than anything. =) As it's just logging right now I'll need to periodically check the filter log to see if anyone has tripped it and revert as necessary, but it's a start. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:24, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
@Locke Cole I see you've tested the filter here. I copied over the filter here to Special:AbuseFilter/251 without group exclusions because I wanted to test something. I don't think there's any issue with the edits you made here for your test but wanted to let you know that you have the option of doing any future or more extensive test on testwiki if you'd like to. PhantomTech[talk] 23:51, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
Just a follow-up, but it looks like we've had a few hits in the log, but so far your basic new user errors, nobody trying the Main page redirect yet other than my one test. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:21, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Add "poo poo" to the poop filter

  • Task: Stop edits adding this string, by adding it to a "disallow" filter (such as the existing "poop" filter)
  • Reason: Because the poop vandalism filter doesn't catch it, and this is quite common.
  • Diffs: [4]

Can this string ("poo poo") be added to the ones prevented by the "poop" filter? I see virtually no legitimate use for this string in mainspace. 💩 Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 12:20, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

just another example. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 10:44, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Unarchiving. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 05:03, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
@Mako001 and EpicPupper: Testing at 1014 (hist · log). Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:28, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
@Mako001 and EpicPupper:  Done. Added to 46 (hist · log). Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:30, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Sheesh

Add the word "sheesh" to the list of vandal meme phrases. It is often used in vandalism and has very few good users. aeschylus (talk) 17:49, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

EFMs, please test with the same code as Filter 614 but with "|s+h+e{2,}s+h+" appended to the search string. There can be an infinite amount of repetition of the string with this reegx, e.g. "sheesh", "shhheeeessssshh", or "sshheeesssssssshhh". 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 05:13, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Testing at 1014 (hist · log). Will probably need a word boundary or negative lookbehind; hasheesh is an alternative spelling of hashish. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:31, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
@Suffusion of Yellow so far hits seem to be all non-FPs. Thoughts? 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 20:18, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
@Aeschylus and EpicPupper:  Done. Added to 614. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:12, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

The word ‘singao’

  • Task: Warn and tag as possible vandalism when a non-autoconfirmed user adds the word 'singao' into a Cuba-related article.
  • Reason: 'Singao' is a vulgar Spanish word used in Cuba, meaning something to the extent of 'motherfucker'. It's a term frequently used to vandalise pages related to Cuban politics.
  • Diffs: Special:Diff/1096814939, Special:Diff/1089277019

Helen(💬📖) 23:57, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

This should work:
!("confirmed" in user_groups) &
page_namespace == 0 & 
added_lines irlike "sin ?gao" &
!((removed_lines + page_title) irlike "sin\s*gao") &
old_wikitext irlike "cuba"
Cheers, and thanks EFMs in advance. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 04:02, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
@EpicPupper and HelenDegenerate: Testing (on all pages) at 1014 (hist · log). Oddly we don't have a filter for Spanish profanity; maybe we should? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:23, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
@EpicPupper and HelenDegenerate: Only three hits in a week, all from the one IP, to the same page as your diffs. Probably better to request semi-protection of that page is this persists. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:05, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Requested Update to Filter 614

y\s*o\s*[lo\s]+s\s*w\s*[4ae]+\s*g+|\by+o+l+o[lo]+|s+w+[4ae]+gg[g]+|#yolo|#sw[4ae]g|sw[4ae]g\s*(?:yolo|daddy|money|lord|master)|420\s*b+l+a+z+e+\s*i+t+|\s*i\s*n\s*t\s*h\s*[ae]\s*p\s*(?:(?:[@uv*]\s*)+(?:[zs$*]\s*)+|[zs$*]{2,})\s*a*y+|\bt+r+o+l(?:o+l|ll)|lolo(?:lo)+|(?:d[3e](?:[3e]+[sz]+|[sz][sz]*)e*|th[3e][zs$][3e])\s*n+u+t+[zs$]|(?:f[u\*][c\*]k(?:ing?|ed|s)|sex\s*with?)\s*chickens?|chicken\s*f[u\*]?[c\*]k(?:er|s|ing)?|(?:them\'?s?|dems?|those\s+are)'?\s+(?:th[ea]|da)\s+fa(?:cts|x)!?|hitler\s*did\s*nothing?\s*wrong|bush\s*did\s*9.?11|dank\s*meme|drumpf|\bdat\s* boi|sub(?:scrib(?:e|es|ed|ing))?\s*(?:to|2)\s*(?:p(ew|ud|ue|uw|oo)|te*.?series)|tran?s?.?manian?\b|chung[uea]s\b|gucci\s*gang[\s,]*gucci\s*gang|\br+eeeeee|fetus\s*deletus|(?<!koe\s)\by+ee+t+(?:e+(?:r+|d+))?\b|\beats?\s*ass\b|ugandan\s*knuckles|hard\s+(?:pp|peepee)|(?:pp|peepee)\s+hard|\booo+f+\b|\bnibb+a+\b|absolute\s*unit|you'?ve\s*been\s*gnomed|\bt+\s*h+\s*i+\s*c\s*c|\bg+a+yy(?:y|\b)|\bayyy|\bl+m+f*a+o|rawr\s*xd|b+o+iii|e+s+k+e+t+i+t|\bh+iii+\b|h+iiiii|hehehe|aviation\s*,[\s\S]*?there\s*is\s*no[\s\S]*?bee[\s\S]*?be\s*able\s*to\s*fly|dQw4w9WgXcQ|\buwu\b|hit\s*or\s*miss[\s,]*I\s*guess|ok(?:ay)?,? boomer|joe m[oa]m+a|#redirect\s*\[\[donald[\s_]trump\]\]|epst(?:ei|ie)n\W+did\s*n.?t\s+kill|\bbruv+\b|\bbruh+\b|(?<!\d|#)(?:69\D*420|420\D*69|(?:69\D{0,50}){3,})(?!\d)|\b(?:ranboo|tubbo)|quandale\s*dingle


It's really hard to see the change because of the regex length, to clarify the change the current segment \bl+m+a+o should become \bl+m+f*a+o PHANTOMTECH [TALK] 05:23, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

@PhantomTech: Testing at 1014 (hist · log). Might be false positives related to LMFAO. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:26, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
@PhantomTech:  Done Added to 614. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 18:56, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

SCP vandalism?

This is infrequent enough that I'm not really sure if an edit filter is justified, but would it be worth it to have a filter that tags additions of strings like "keter", "overseer council", "secure. contain, protect" etc. to pages with SCP in the title other than SCP Foundation and SCP: Containment Breach? See, for example, [5], [6]. casualdejekyll 03:17, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

That's one of the weirdest types of vandalism I've ever seen. Stifle (talk) 14:10, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
It's not all that different to something like what happened with Bishop Auckland. Internet memes are inevitable, and Wikipedia is on the internet. casualdejekyll 23:37, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Unarchiving. This should work:
!("confirmed" in user_groups) &
page_namespace == 0 & 
added_lines irlike "keter|overseer\s+council|secure\.?\s+contain\.?\s+protect\.?" &
!(page_title rlike "SCP Foundation|SCP: Containment Breach")
This checks for "keter", "overseer council", and "secure. contain. protect" in pages other than SCP Foundation and SCP: Containment Breach. There can be any amount of spaces between the latter two. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 05:11, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
@Casualdejekyll: Testing at 1014 (hist · log) Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:29, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
If it doesn't get any hits soon then don't worry about it. I think the stuff's infrequent enough to just not even justify it. (You might want to throw in "object class" too. just to see if there's any false positives.) @EpicPupper casualdejekyll 13:59, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
I think limiting it to pages with "SCP" in the title will get a lot of false negatives, as seen with your second example. RteeeeKed💬📖 22:10, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
@Casualdejekyll: No hits in week, apart from "cricketer". Seems this has died down. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 18:59, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, it seems like the filter's unnecessary. Thanks for your time, though! casualdejekyll 19:01, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Update to Filter 384

  • Task: Add 'nutsack' or 'nut sack' (with spaces) into filter 384.
  • Reason: Commonly used in vandalism. I can't think of any legitimate uses for this word.
  • Diffs: Special:Diff/1104150480

HelenDegenerate(💬📖) 01:36, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

@HelenDegenerate: Testing at 1014 (hist · log). Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:32, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
@HelenDegenerate: Only one hit in a week. I don't think this is worth filtering. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:00, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

"Everything" as an edit summary

Should be added to 970 or Common vandal summaries as nearly all edits with this summary are massive removal of content. BlueCrabRedCrab 22:35, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

@BlueCrabRedCrab: It would be nice to show some diffs. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 04:45, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Found one: Special:Diff/1016678619. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 14:19, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
thanks. --BlueCrabRedCrab 01:57, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
It looks like adding the phrase to Special:AbuseFilter/981 is reasonable. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 07:14, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Unarchiving. EFM, please test with the below in a test filter:
!("confirmed" in user_groups) &
(
    bad_word := "everything";

    match := get_matches(bad_word, summary);
    
    match[0] & !(match[0] in old_wikitext)
)
After a trial period, if this is successful, "|everything" can be appended to the match string of 981. Cheers, 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 01:41, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
@BlueCrabRedCrab, EpicPupper, and Aseleste: Testing (along with a few others) at 1014 (hist · log). Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:16, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
@BlueCrabRedCrab, EpicPupper, and Aseleste:  Done Added to 981 (hist · log), along with "nothing", "yes", "truth", and "ma[dk]e it better". Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:44, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Unexplained content removal blocking

  • Task: Prevent removal of large amounts of content (let's say 100 bytes?) without explanation in the edit summary.
  • Reason: Should help with WP:UCR.
  • Diffs: [7] [8] [9] (There are way more I could've included but I don't want to waste my time looking for more diffs, can provide more if needed) RteeeeKed💬📖 17:02, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
    @RteeeeKed, filter 30 is currently set to warn and tag. Are you suggesting it be set to disallow? Cheers! 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 17:14, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
    Oh, didn't know that existed. I think it should be disallowed with a message saying to explain why you removed the content. RteeeeKed💬📖 17:16, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
    Not an edit filter expert, but I'll chime in to say that I that I don't think the filter should be set to disallow. Vandals who remove large parts of content tend to leave blank / vitriolic summaries, and preventing them from doing that might inspire them to write some semi-realistic explanation that would take more effort to deal with, because it wouldn't be tagged. casualdejekyll 22:59, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
    RteeeeKed The threshold is set to 5000 bytes on the filter 30, so the filter has not been triggered for these edits. The threshold value may be discussed. On the other hand Casualdejekyll made good points. These edits are manually reverted by rollbackers in a seconds. I normally follow-up these potential "vandals" and %99 percent of a time they would do other vandalism. Instead of disallow, setting to warn and tag is a good way to spotlight these potential vandals. --Assyrtiko (talk) 10:08, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

"Matthew Fagwell" vandalism

I've encountered a few instances recently ([10] [11] [12]) of different editors adding a bogus name into articles. I'm not sure if this is a widespread thing recently or just a one-time spree, but considering it could be very easily missed I thought it'd be worth adding a request here, or at the very least adding it to an existing test filter temporarily to see if the edits subside. DatGuyTalkContribs 11:31, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

You could also do an insource search: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=insource%3A%22Fagwell%22&title=Special:Search&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1 0xDeadbeef 11:37, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
I don't see why this couldn't be tested in a log-only filter. This should work.
!("confirmed" in user_groups) &
page_namespace == 0 & 
added_lines irlike "Matthew\s*Fagwell"
Thanks EFMs in advance. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 04:04, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
@EpicPupper and DatGuy: Don't know if this is still a thing, but testing at 1014 (hist · log). Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:27, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
@DatGuy: No hits in a week, though of course you can continue testing this yourself now. :-) Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 18:58, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Royal Central

I just closed WP:RSN#RFC: Sydney Zatz on Royal Central with consensus to deprecate Royal Central (royalcentral.co.uk)—could it please be added to filter 869? Thanks in advance. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:09, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

 Already done @Extraordinary Writ: Looks to be already added by Newslinger. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:03, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Constantinople > Istanbul

  • Task: Tag "Constantinople > Istanbul" edits
  • Reason: In 1930, Constantinople was renamed To Istanbul. It should be Kept as Constantinople in the related to articles referring before 1930 or It should be kept as Istanbul after 1930.
  • Diffs: 1

Assyrtiko (talk) 09:44, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Example filter:
!("confirmed" in user_groups) &
page_namespace == 0 &
(added_lines rlike "[İi]stanbul|Constantinople") &
(removed_lines rlike "Constantinople|"[İi]stanbul") &
--Assyrtiko (talk) 09:45, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
Your example checks if either Istanbul or Constantinople is present in any edited line both before and after the edit, regardless of if it was changed. A filter for this would either need to compare counts of Istanbul and Constantinople pre and post edit or use two or separated checks, one for each switch option. PhantomTech[talk] 10:36, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
Thank you PhantomTech Can you check the one below?
!("confirmed" in user_groups) &
page_namespace == 0 &
(added_lines rlike "[Ii]stanbul|Constantinople") &
(removed_lines rlike "[Ii]stanbul|Constantinople") &
rcount("[Ii]stanbul|Constantinople", removed_lines) > rcount(“[Ii]stanbul|Constantinople", added_lines)
--Assyrtiko (talk) 11:13, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
This does the same check but adds the condition that there is one less total instance of the total count of "Istanbul"s and "Constantinople"s after the edit. Something like this would try to catch switching between the two:
page_namespace == 0 &
added_lines irlike '[İI]stanbul|Constantinople' & (
    opt1 := '(?i)[İI]stanbul';
    opt2 := '(?i)Constantinople';
    count1r := rcount(opt1, removed_lines);
    count1a := rcount(opt1, added_lines);
    count2r := rcount(opt2, removed_lines);
    count2a := rcount(opt2, added_lines);
    sum_diff := (count1a + count2a) - (count1r + count2r);
    count1a - count1r - sum_diff > 0 |
    count2a - count2r - sum_diff > 0
)
It won't catch everything and would need to be tested/looked at by someone first but I think something along these lines is the best that the filters can do for this. My example also doesn't exclude based on confirmed status, it seems like this might be something that a more experienced user might do in good faith so I assume that should also be tagged, but that can be decided if it's decided that this filter should be added or tested. PhantomTech[talk] 19:52, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
@PhantomTech: Perhaps the logic in 1154 (hist · log) would make more sense? We don't want to flag simply adding or removing a sentence that happens to contain "Istanbul" or "Constantinople", right? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:01, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
@Suffusion of Yellow It looks like 1154 won't catch any changes if there are any additions or removals of either option. I think you're right that my conditions would flag removals as long as added_lines still matched [İI]stanbul|Constantinople but I don't think it'd match additions and I think the removal issue is fixed by converting sum_diff to be its absolute value. If fixed, my conditions should catch some changes even when there are additions or removals. I'm not sure how common those would be but I'm imagining someone adding a sentence or even a paragraph while also changing a bunch of instances in the rest of the article. PhantomTech[talk] 21:37, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Unblock request rejection

  • Task: Reject unblock requests of the form {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
  • Reason: Our standard block messages say, If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} Over the years, there's been language there to suggest that the user replace "your reason here" with their reason. It doesn't seem to matter; every day, while reviewing unblock requests, I see several of these. It's a minor waste of time for reviewers, and probably quite frustrating for the blocked user, who very much of the time is acting entirely in good faith. These are almost always naive users - naive enough that they don't then edit the request to make it useful. It's happening now much more often because of "reply"; a small portion of them are deliberate vandalism, and I guess this would stop that too.
  • Diffs: [13]

The diff is a good example of several problems related to the unblock templates and their interaction with the reply tool, which I'm addressing elsewhere. In this case, it's clear the user used the "reply" tool, and pasted in the whole suggested unblock request. (That's why there are two signatures; one expanded from the cut-and-paste, and one added by "reply".) --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 22:18, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

@Jpgordon: Testing at 1014 (hist · log). Before setting this to warn/disallow, we'll need to exclude requests like {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} I should be unblocked because..." and whatever other "creative" ways people come up with to format their requests. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:19, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
We'll also want the same thing for unblock-spamun and unblock-un. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 01:20, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
@Jpgordon: Now at 1218 (hist · log). It looks most of what 1014 caught was, as I suggested, just people putting the reason outside of the template. I only found four truly blank requests. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:49, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
OK, thanks. Might be too few to bother with? --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 01:22, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
@Jpgordon: It's possibly that this filter is missing a large number of empty requests, for some reason I haven't thought of. Let me know if you spot any that aren't logged by 1218 (hist · log). Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:05, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

"Boyfriend" filter

DH85868993 (talk) 10:11, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

@DH85868993: Let's try the bad image list first. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:29, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
@Suffusion of Yellow: Great idea. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 22:37, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Additions to "bad words" filter(s)

  • Task: Add "shite" and "arse" to filter 384 or another similar one.
  • Reason: These variants of words in the filter don't seem to be caught. They're getting tagged as "possible vandalism" instead, even when there's nothing "possible" about it.
  • Diffs:Special:Diff/1111217884

Sumanuil. 02:44, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

@Sumanuil: Testing at 839 (hist · log). Over 900 uses of each word in mainspace right now , so we'll have to see common these words are in unconstructive edits. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:03, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
@Suffusion of Yellow:: Is there some way to grandfather those in? Sumanuil. 01:26, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
@Sumanuil: Yes, the filter already excludes edits to lines already containing a "bad word". The large number of existing uses is just a clue that adding these words might cause too many FPs, so testing is needed first. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:04, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Arse is just south of Saipar Dolok Hole. The shite is the principal character in a Japanese Noh play or the person who performs the technique in aikido. However, most vandals probably don't intend those meanings. Certes (talk) 09:38, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Filter request

Hello, is it possible to add "Satpal Dhaliwal" and "Bhupinder Dulai" as bad words? These names keep being added by IP users to various luxury watchmaker articles (Rolex, Audemars Piguet, etc.) as the CEO, etc. As soon as an article's temporary protection is lifted, the name is edited back as CEO; when a few articles are protected, they find an article that is not protected to add themselves as CEO. It is very difficult to keep on top of this vandalism, especially as higher-profile articles become protected and the IP users seek out other watchmaker articles with fewer watchers--the edits stay up much longer because they aren't patrolled by nearly as many editors. Thank you. Spongeworthy93 (talk) 14:08, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

@Spongeworthy93: Testing at 1013 (hist · log) (private). Nearly zero risk of FPs here based on a quick search. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:42, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
@Spongeworthy93: No hits in two weeks. Let me know if this starts up again. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:07, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

"Pornographique" vandalism

Sumanuil. 04:07, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Second two seem like valid terms that can be used in articles about child porn. RteeeeKed💬📖 18:34, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Maybe, but not in, for example, List of Muslim Nobel laureates. That's what whitelists are for. Sumanuil. 20:51, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Ah, ok. RteeeeKed💬📖 21:55, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
@Sumanuil: Logging at private filter 1222 (hist · log). This sort of thing shouldn't be a general vandalism filter; sooner or later they'll go away and then everyone will wonder why that was there. OTOH vandals are going keep using the seven dirty words for a long time. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:04, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Replacing "Pakistan" with "Porkistan"

Sumanuil. 06:54, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Is this actually common enough to warrant an edit filter? We're running up against the condition limit already. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:16, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
Re condition limit: can we safely disable any older filters? I recall requesting one several years ago to prevent an LTA from inserting certain children's characters into older media; that editor may now have grown up and either stopped or moved on to other spam more relevant to their current age. That filter may now be redundant. (It's private, so I can't check hits.) Certes (talk) 10:42, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Maybe not, but it still has no place here. Sumanuil. 21:18, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Obviously, but at some point we're just wasting server time if this happens only once every other day or so. Reaper Eternal (talk) 22:11, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

It's worth a little "wasted server time" not to have to revert trolls. Sumanuil. 00:27, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done. Insufficient disruption to warrant a filter. Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:28, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Requested edit filter for repeat vandal

  • Task: Stop the YT Tuzz vandal on Talk:Edge (wrestler) and it's main page.
  • Reason: This vandal repeatedly vandalizes the article and associated talk page for Edge (wrestler) with something relating to "YT Tuzz" despite multiple blocks on their IPs. Usually once they are blocked after a week or so they just return on a new IP, making the same edits.
  • Diffs: Most edits by this vandal have been revdel'd.

― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 20:54, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done. Seek page protection instead. Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:27, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

"Turning Red" vandalism

  • Task: Block the addition of Turning Red is the worst film ever made in cinema history. in both article content and edit summaries
  • Reason: Not sure exactly if this is an LTA or a spambot attack or what, but it's occurring across multiple seemingly unrelated pages and from multiple IP addresses
  • Diffs: Special:Contributions/103.197.184.119 and Special:Contributions/75.31.24.140 are the two from tonight

Taking Out The Trash (talk) 02:39, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

I have a sneaking suspicion that this isn't the first time we've seen this person. DatGuyTalkContribs 06:57, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Monitoring at 1214 with minimal changes. DatGuyTalkContribs 07:04, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Adding Person to the Edgewood High School Wiki Page

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.

47.229.255.219 (talk) 07:59, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

The filter is working properly. Notable alumni means that they must be blue links. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 11:13, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Adding an individual to the page. This person is a key alumni to the school, holding multiple athletic records.

 Not done School record holders are not inherently notable if they have not yet done anything in the real grown-up world that leads to notability. If this person ever does something that actually makes them notable, in whatever field, then and only then might they be added to the school's article with a link to the article about them and their actual notability. This also has nothing whatsoever to do with filters. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:55, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
This also has nothing whatsoever to do with filters - Just noting that they probably meant to post on WP:EF/FP, as suggested by their filter log in which they were disallowed when trying to add this to a page 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 05:11, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Warn new editors when publishing large edits marked as minor

Fun Is Optional (talk page) (please ping on reply) 01:55, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done -- per 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. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 03:05, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
The reasoning doesn't have much to do with what I requested. While, yes, new editors are not expected to have read any policy, I think that having the warning to tell them that what they are doing might not be a minor edit will ensure that their edits (both now and future) get the standard scrutiny. In reality, I think the best solution to this is to clarify what it means on the edit summary box. Fun Is Optional (talk page) (please ping on reply) 04:40, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Feel free to propose changes to the interface. But this isn't abusive editing, and we aren't going to add friction to, and potentially lose, contributions just to make the editor double check if they really meant to tick 'minor'. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:43, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

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.

DavidWilliams7643 (talk) 22:38, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Requesting filtering needed for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inglorious due to vandalism, homophobic word and detrimental content from impersonated user name. Thank you.

IPs telling people to commit suicide

  • Task: The filter is supposed to prevent IPs from being able to edit user pages and user talk pages to insert commands relating to the commission of suicide, such as "kill yourself", "unalive yourself", "hang yourself", etc., as well as phrases that fuzzy match it. The filter should deny such behavior.
  • Reason: This behavior is always abusive and uncivil and honestly there's no need for this to actually get through to a user's talk page.
  • Diffs: [14]

— Red-tailed hawk (nest) 20:47, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Fraud institute misusing Wikipedia

Adding illegal enterprise Capt. Ahluwalia Aviation Academy

  • Task: Preventing addition of illegal enterprise Capt. Ahluwalia Aviation Academy at List of pilot training institutes in India.
  • Reason: Someone is adding an unlicensed and non-DGCA approved pilot training institute to List of pilot training institutes in India for credibility. It is a fraud institute asking high fee and offering "too good to be true" scholarships in their 3 websites (which I have asked to blacklist).
  • Diffs: [15][16]

Fight Island (talk) 04:24, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

It looks like this has only happened twice in the last ten days, and the contributions from those IPs seem to be limited to just that page. I did an insource search on the partial name and it didn't bring up any hits. Per the header at the top of this page, 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., so it would probably be better to seek page protection, unless I've missed something? Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:32, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
Sideswipe9th, page protected but came back again and it was accepted.--Fight Island (talk) 17:44, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Try requesting semiprotection rather than PC? GeneralNotability as protecting admin. It's an esoteric abuse unlikely to be picked up by PC patrollers, who typically are meant to guard against blatant vandalism. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:45, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Sure, done. GeneralNotability (talk) 21:35, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Common spelling in English

  • Task: Detect edit summaries that say "common spelling in English", "English spellings", and maybe variations of those.
  • Reason: Ok, longish story. In New Zealand, we use macrons for words that have their origin in the Māori language, which amongst other things changes pronunciation. Which isn't something that everyone agrees with as macrons aren't part of English as detractors argue. The use of macrons in New Zealand English is all codified in the New Zealand naming conventions and given that it's not uncontroversial, we went through a lengthy RfC in 2020 to establish consensus for macron use for place names (if you want to read the discussion, set aside 1hr +). We have an editor who utilises IP hopping who does not agree with this and he goes through articles and pipes geographic names so that macrons do not get displayed. This is low level vandalism and hard to detect as the link to the target article itself does not change. What seems to be case, though, is that this editor consistently uses "common spelling in English" as the edit summary. Hence, if an edit filter could track those edits, it would be easier to review whether there should be a macron and whether the IP edit should be reverted.
  • Diffs: undetected for three weeks; undetected for seven months; undetected for three months

Schwede66 02:03, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Page protection is not an option because this affects a high proportion of articles dealing with New Zealand subjects, and the anon isn't focussing on only a few pages. The edit filter should log the edits, not warn the anon in any way, because this would be easy for the anon to avoid just by changing the edit summary they use. If Schwede66 and I can view the log for this filter every day or so, we can reverse any such edits and the anon will not know how we are tracking them.-gadfium 00:39, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
I might be the editor referred to here. I would question the explanation above by Schwede66 of what is happening. In NZ it has become increasingly common to use actual Maori words (including Maori spelling and pronunciation) rather than the anglised and often already assimilated English versions of those Maori words (where spelling and pronunciation has changed accordingly). This approach in NZ is driven by legislation that forces the use of Maori words rather than the anglised English words and by an increasing social trend willingly to promote Maori related issues. This situation does not necessarily apply outside New Zealand where the anglised version of Maori words is usually used, not the Maori word in Maori. This makes it inappropriate to say that the way these words are used in NZ automatically applies outside NZ. The edit tag 'common English usage' applies to articles not closely associated with NZ where the use of NZ English may be inappropriate. The issue is not about whether macrons should be used, it is about whether the English word should be used or the Maori word. Failure to grasp that distinction by some has led to much fruitless discussion and unjustified negative finger pointing. I would therefore oppose this current request because it is grounded on an unintentional misunderstanding of the problem it is trying to solve. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 01:14, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, Roger 8 Roger, are you saying that you log out to suppress macrons? Schwede66 02:13, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
I almost never edit anonymously and certainly never to hide from being 'detected'. I have occasionally/rarely removed a macron from a non-NZ site where I thought it inappropriate as explained above but not in an orchestrated way. I did sometimes remove macrons from NZ sites but less so in the last couple of years and never without an explained reason. If that reason is never understood, as suggested explained above, my motives will be questioned, as they usually are. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 03:40, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
If that's the case, this isn't about you. This is about an IP editor who utilises IP hopping and who edits geography items in contravention of the RfC consensus referred to above. Schwede66 03:55, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Ok, thanks and sorry if I jumped to conclusions: the whole wider macron issue is a touchy subject. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 06:03, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Here is a list of unreverted IP edits to NZ articles with edit summaries mentioning both English and spelling. I've run it for 2021–22. There are a lot of false positives but it should still be useful. Certes (talk) 19:23, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
Thank you Certes, that's perfect. I've gone through that report. There are only a few false positives, and several where the edits have already been reversed, but also a few where the anon is probably correct that macrons have been used too eagerly. I've restored the spellings in the remainder. I have since run a modified version (to establish that I understand how to do so - I haven't written SQL for nearly 20 years) modifying the dates to start at the beginning of November 2022, so I think we're set from this point on.-gadfium 23:51, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
That looks perfect. You could set up a regular {{Database report}} to run every day/week/month and pop up on your watchlist: see User:Certes/Reports for examples. You may want to replace the BETWEEN condition. I experimented with date ranges and lazily set the end date to 1 Jan 2023, but something like rev_timestamp >= REPLACE(CURDATE() - INTERVAL 1 MONTH, "-", "") will list changes from a month ago with no end date. Certes (talk) 11:35, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Task: IPs 76.68.77.79, 174.95.137.59 and user Imperial meter have repeatedly tried to combine all page history, even renamed Funimation to Crunchyroll as the same companies in a confusing way.
  • Reason: Some administrator could be in charge of eliminating numerous editions, summaries and comments in the articles of Crunchyroll and Funimation, it has not stopped making disorders between the two since speculation began that Funimation, for example, operates under the umbrella of Crunchyroll which was acquired by Sony (its owner) in 2021 and also eliminate unnecessary redirects (from streaming service to company).
  • Diffs: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26

200.88.59.111 (talk) 03:30, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done This is not a place for settling a content dispute. Consider reading WP:Dispute resolution instead. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 04:37, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Tagging non-admins who accept/decline unblock requests

  • Task: Logs (and if stable, tags or even disallows, users who are not administrators from changing {{unblock}} to {{unblock reviewed}} or {{unblock on hold}}.
  • Reason: We had some LTAs recently who declined legitimate unblock requests, such as Mikuiou, Mikuieu, Spaocew, and ScotchFishinWhammie30. Of course, it's entirely possible that we might be having other non-admin users who are inappropriately "handling" unblock requests when they're not supposed to. It would be useful if we had a filter that could catch these edits so users who are filing a legitimate unblock request won't fall through the cracks because a vandal "declined" their unblock.
  • Diffs: See contributions links above.

—k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 18:13, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

What does "LTA" stand for? Herostratus (talk) 01:03, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
@Herostratus, it means WP:Long-term abuser. casualdejekyll 01:21, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
K, thx. Herostratus (talk) 08:02, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
Whenever I see a cryptic abbreviation that only the regulars understand, I type WP:+initialism into the search box, e.g. WP:LTA, and am usually enlightened. Certes (talk) 14:16, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
@K6ka First attempt is now logging at Special:AbuseFilter/1235. Sam Walton (talk) 10:40, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
I think it would be better if it catches both captitalizations: [uU]nblock. Also see [17] 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 11:55, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
On a separate thought, I think we might be able to catch all cases by detecting removal of the template instead. @Samwalton9: Thoughts? 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 13:27, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
@0xDeadbeef Capitalisation is a great point, added. How would you see the removal option working? Sam Walton (talk) 13:52, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
If a non-sysop removes {{unblock}}, then it would hit this. we could let extended confirmed editors bypass this if people need to remove unblock requests that only contain vandalism. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 14:06, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
I was under the impression that, even if an unblock request was just vandalism, it is best to leave it in place anyway, so the admin can clearly see that the template is being used abusively and revoke TPA accordingly. Unless it is to remove oversightable stuff, non-admins should never modify an unblock request. Even then, they should leave the template itself alone, and only modify the parts that need to have oversightable material removed.
TLDR version: As I understand, there is absolutely no reson for a non-admin to change an unblock request to "reviewed" or "review on hold", declined or whatever. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 06:47, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
@K6ka and Samwalton9: See Special:AbuseFilter/history/1235/diff/prev/28246. @0xDeadbeef: Some good ideas, but there's a good chance the LTA doing this (it's only one LTA AFAIK) is reading this discussion right now. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:44, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
@Suffusion of Yellow You're right - disabled 1235. Sam Walton (talk) 21:22, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the reminder. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 01:14, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
I wasn't initially aware of that filter, thanks for pointing it out. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 01:18, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

/* Notable alumni */ added Kenny King Jr, sports writer and digital content creator

  • 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.

Loopygru (talk) 09:12, 2 January 2023 (UTC) Requesting to Add Kenny King Jr to the Las Lomas High School notable alumni. King is a Sports Writer for Vegas Sports Daily as well as a prominent podcaster on the Blue Wire Network.

@Loopygru This noticeboard is only for requesting new filters. If you think someone is notable for inclusion, you need a source. See our notability guideline. 137a (talk) 13:16, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
I think we can archive this now. {{archive now}} 137a (talk) 13:40, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Modification to common vandal summaries filter

  • Task: Prevent the use of "nothing" as an edit summary.
  • Reason: This is a common vandal summary, and is (at best) an entirely useless edit summary, and at worst, used to (invariably unsuccessfully) attempt to get around RC patrollers.
  • Diffs: [18]

Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 06:51, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

information Note: above user tripped filter 981 (hist · log) ("Commmon vandal summaries", log-only, maybe a test filter). 137a (talk) 15:31, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Bumping thread for 14 days. 137a (talk) 13:12, 9 January 2023 (UTC) Hopefully, an EFM will come here soon 137a (talk) 13:12, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

bad words to test

first word here, as well as "/blo+ser/b" should be tested in 839 (hist · log). These are somewhat common insults that you won't find in many constructive edits 137a (talk) 15:29, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

8,640 articles contain the word "loser" in lower case, and none of the sample I checked look like vandalism. I suspect there will be too many false positives. Certes (talk) 15:40, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
how about this word here? 137a (talk) 17:09, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Lots of words there! I'm struggling to guess whether get a bran loosers your so stuped is insult or parody, but ClueBot spotted and reverted it as expected. Certes (talk) 18:24, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

"trann(y|ie)", "libtard": rarely seen in legitimate edits from new users; pretty common insults. "far[- ]left": too often used in POV-pushing or personal attacks. This is what I suggest be tested. 137a (talk) 13:58, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Bumping thread for 14 days. 137a (talk) 13:12, 9 January 2023 (UTC) see if an EFM will decide. 137a (talk) 13:12, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Goofy ahh

  • Task: Can we put the phrase 'goofy ahh' in a test filter and see if it's worthy of addition to Filter 614?
  • Reason: 'Goofy ahh' is Internet slang for 'goofy ass' and I've seen it used a lot lately. None of the additions have been constructive.
  • Diffs: Special:Diff/1127464826, Special:Diff/1126899694

◇HelenDegenerate◆ 21:50, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Bumping thread for 14 days. 137a (talk) 13:12, 9 January 2023 (UTC) 137a (talk) 13:12, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

ahmed@farouk disruption

SunilNevlaFan✨ 17:18, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Benjamin Dherbecourt

  • Task: We need a filter to prevent the name "Benjamin Dherbecourt" from being added to music articles as a producer or writer. Sometimes just the surname Dherbecourt is added.
  • Reason: The disruption started with User:Hunco45 in 2014, then started coming from IPs in France, and is targeting multiple music articles.
  • Diffs: The first instances of this disruption involved User:Hunco45 in 2014,[20] who stopped contributing after several warnings. After that, the IPs involved include Special:Contributions/176.153.21.91 just recently, and the range Special:Contributions/2A01:E34:ECE6:5DD0:0:0:0:0/64 back in 2018. Typical activity includes adding the name Benjamin Dherbecourt to music by Selena Gomez,[21][22][23][24][25] and more rarely by other pop artists.[26][27] This kind of disruption is too hard to prevent without a filter.

Binksternet (talk) 04:56, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Illegitimate unblock request handling

--jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 19:04, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

@Jpgordon: What do you think the user requirements should be? That is, do you envision a case where a user in good standing, but not an admin, would legitimately need to mark an unblock request as reviewed? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:34, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
I've wondered a bit about that myself. I'd think at the very least, non-confirmed users really have no business messing with that stuff. There's no policy that I know of restricting regular users from reviewing and declining unblock requests. I haven't seen it happening much, if at all. And I can't think of any strong reason to prevent regular users from helping out by rejecting clearly nonsense or malicious requests -- though I think it's better just to revert such requests, and often do so. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 20:06, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 Not done after further review. Emailing you with details. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:27, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
@King of Hearts: I'm seeing this a whole lot, eg. Special:Contributions/Celltiwosin, Special:Contributions/Mistral128 in the last hour - I see several of them every day in the abuse log, there have to have been like 15+ instances by now. (The relevant filter is 1221, currently it doesn't disallow the edit.) And it's been happening for a week or more. So I would very strongly recommend upgrading the filter to disallow.
I think the fallout from stopping very new accounts from reviewing unblock requests is minimal. How often would they even have the policy knowledge to do so properly? CharredShorthand.talk; 19:01, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
Speak of the devil, Special:Contributions/Meirtuios appeared two minutes ago. CharredShorthand.talk; 19:02, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
WP:DENY. We don't talk about... --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 19:10, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
Disregarding 1221 and any possible checks specific to the target it may perform, I consider a public filter to disallow reviewing non-sysops from reviewing unblocks with a nice explainer message as useful, and don't see why it shouldn't exist. Perhaps for another discussion though. DatGuyTalkContribs 19:19, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
I wonder if we're worrying about something non-existent. When would a non-admin have a legitimate reason to process an unblock request? If it's vandalism, just revert the vandalism. Otherwise, wait for one of the admins who hang around CAT:RFU to deal with it. I do think it's time to turn on disallow 1221 right now, though. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 20:00, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
Pinging Firefly to comment. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:33, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm certainly not giving technical details here, but here are a few situations this filter must deal with:
  1. An outright abusive request should be removable by any user. There may be responded requests on the page.
  2. If a page with a responded unblock request is blanked by a third party, anyone should be allowed to revert.
  3. The template can be invoked by a number of methods (such as upper vs. lower first lettee).
Animal lover |666| 17:09, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
Case 2 is the only one of particular technical concern. I'm not sure how we'd recognize that was happening, but I don't know the depth (or lack thereof) of information filters are privy to. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 17:51, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
That specific case can be differentiated using available variables see mw:Extension:AbuseFilter/Rules format, don't want to get into details on-wiki for obvious reasons and there's an experienced team here that will get it done more neatly than I would anyway. But otherwise my thoughts tend to align with those of Firefly below. If you do go through with this it's probably safer to use an edit count high enough that it's unlikely to be gamed rather than disallowing all non-sysops. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 19:23, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
I came up with several other methods to use the template without tripping an edit filter, and sent it to the edit filter email list. Animal lover |666| 18:36, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure setting 1221 to disallow is the best idea, as the user(s) will simply evade it and find new an interesting ways to make mischief I fear. I don't hold this view very strongly however, so won't stand in the way if we want to try it out. firefly ( t · c ) 18:13, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
This seems to all be the work of a single person. Given what we know about this LTA, I don't see this being productive. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 18:26, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
On the other hand, they are impersonating an administrator to tell blocked users to create new accounts. This might be a serious enough issue that it is worth preventing even if they do merely find something else to do. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 18:33, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
They may find a new way, but at least it won't be sending emails to blocked users about their unblock request. They're clearly not trying to evade scrutiny, so I don't think that's going to be an issue. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:06, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
I've been on the fence about setting this to disallow. My main concern was that their new M.O. might not be logged by any filter, so they'll disappear off the radar for a while. At a minimum, keep a close eye on 1055 (hist · log). If they're finding a new way to troll or harass users, it will probably show up there. The email issue hadn't occurred to me until now; I now lean towards flipping the switch. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:34, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
Concur with Suffusion - leaning to disallow now. firefly ( t · c ) 18:08, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
This form of abuse did strike me as particularly problematic given many of the users requesting unblock only have a fuzzy grasp of what is acceptable here, and so are susceptible to being misled. CharredShorthand.talk; 03:34, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
This came up here not very long ago. I'll say again what I said then: Non-admins, regardless of experience, should not be reviewing unblock requests, period. Admins need to see unblock requests, even obvious "decline" ones, to judge whether or not they should revoke TPA or not. Prohibiting anyone but admins from reviewing unblock requests seems most definitely reasonable. If a non-admin has any comment on an unblock request which they feel will be relevant to the reviewing admin, or has guidance for the blocked user, they can add it below the unblock request. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 04:45, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Sure. But that's a policy thing, not a filtery thing. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 06:56, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
@Jpgordon: Isn't that policy already? WP:UNBLOCK specifically mentions administrators as being responsible for reviewing unblock requests. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 14:12, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
This policy question has already been discussed at the appropriate venue. However, there are other reasons that it's unwise to set this filter to disallow anyone who's not in the sysop user group. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 14:26, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Edit_filter/Requested/Archive_20&oldid=1144083268"