Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Iloveartrock

• Task prevent IP-hopping sock Iloveartrock from continuing to disrupt articles. Not sure how this can be achieved but there are some patterns to work with:

• IPs often begin with "179.7", "179.4", "180", "58", "59, "221", or "222"
• The target articles are always related to rock music, the Velvet Underground, or Pink Floyd, and so they fall under the projects WP:ROCK, WP:ALTROCK, or WP:FLOYD

• A list of previously targeted articles is available at their userpage

• The edit is usually to add or remove a mention of Syd Barrett, the Velvet Underground, or some particular genres (rock/pop styles that begin with "noise", "avant-", or "experimental")
• Sometimes there are about 10 or 15 prior edits made just to hide that they're a sockpuppet

• Reason Self-evident long-term disruption. There is a bit more background here: Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Iloveartrock as well as [1] [2] [3] [4] --Ilovetopaint (talk) 21:30, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

One hint for the filter writer is that the term "Pink Floyd" or "Velvet Underground" will be present in the article in the great majority of cases. Binksternet (talk) 06:10, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not particularly convinced there's anything edit filters can do here. The range of edits being made just isn't conducive to writing a reliable filter. I note that the primary IP range was rangeblocked yesterday; lets see if that helps. Sam Walton (talk) 10:57, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Carlos Gardel

• Task: To prevent IPs from Montevideo, Uruguay, from editing the article Carlos Gardel.
• Reason: For more than seven years, Gardel's biography has been the target of many disruptive accounts and IPs from Montevideo, Uruguay. Somebody there can't accept that their favored story about Gardel being born in Uruguay has been solidly disproved. Here's a list of the Montevideo IPs from the last four months:
• 167.57.118.153 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 167.61.209.252 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 186.54.44.89 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 167.56.46.70 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 167.57.66.173 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 167.57.50.96 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 167.57.52.189 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 167.56.168.118 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 167.57.232.207 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 186.51.178.248 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

If there is a way to filter Montevideo IPs who are trying to edit the article I would be happy to hear about it. Binksternet (talk) 06:08, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

@Binksternet: Testing at 851 . Sam Walton (talk) 11:11, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Great idea! Thanks. Binksternet (talk) 14:16, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Reverting IP vandalism on birth/death dates & places

• Task: Revert all edits by IPs using the article's title as the edit summary.
• Reason Bringing this back as it was ignored before being archived. An anonymous editor has been adding (mostly) false birth/death dates and places to articles, which are often contradictory (see [5][6]). They have used numerous different IPs,[7][8][9][10][11][12][13] so blocking (nor a rangeblock) won't help. However, they always have the same edit summary – the article title – so this should be easy to filter out. Number 57 18:40, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

  {{EFR}} (private) with the disclaimer that should we be able to reliably disallow these edits, it won't take much for them to get around the filter. False changes (good or bad faith) to any parameter in the infoboxes are unfortunately common. We have a few filters to help monitor this 364, 391, 712, 735, 777 and possibly others. This issue might become less common when everything is moved to Wikidata, or become worse, who knows... — MusikAnimal ^talk 03:03, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

  Now at 852 — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:22, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Vwegba4real Socks

• Task: Prevent known sock Vwegba4real from continuing to insert content long ago determined to be unhelpful.
• Reason: See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vwegba4real for the background, but this sock's MO is to shoehorn in things related to "Pastor Isaiah Ogedegbe" and his prophecies. The recent tactic has been to source the blog and the "Warri Times" (owned by Ogedegbe) in articles. (Ref: [14], [15], and many others that SuperMarioMan can attest to). Not sure if it rises to the need to spend the CPU, but if we have a "moderate sock spam" filter already, adding: ((I(saiah)?).*?Ogedegbe) should catch the Prophecy spam, and warritimes.wordpress.com will catch the use of that URL in references, which I don't think the Spam Blacklist will, and XLinksBot doesn't. Crow^Caw 22:41, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
• I endorse Crow's assessment and second his proposal for an edit filter. In recent weeks I have removed Isaiah Ogedegbe/"Warri Times" refspam here (see all post-2016 edit history), here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here – and the full campaign is even more extensive. Due to the large number of IP addresses used a filter would be more effective and less damaging than a series of rangeblocks. SuperMarioMan–Talk 22:22, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

• He's recently been going by "I O Ogedegbe" so perhaps add .*I.*?O.*?Ogedegbe.* as well? Crow^Caw 22:09, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

• And now O. I. Ogedegbe, so make that .*[OI].*?[IO].*?Ogedegbe.* Crow^Caw 22:38, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

• Regarding the blog link, I think the spam blacklist will work, as will XLinkBot if it is in the OverrideList. That aside, the "Ogedegbe" stuff sounds like another cat and mouse game, where the filter will need frequent updates by someone familiar with the case. @Crow: Since you seem to be familiar with regex, have you considered requesting edit filter manager rights? Seems appropriate to me :) In the meantime I've set up something at Special:AbuseFilter/637, but it is private. Regarding privacy, by the way, any filter requests regarding sockpuppets should probably be made via the mailing list. Many socks know or will learn to check here and related pages — MusikAnimal ^talk 03:33, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

• No hits after a week. I'm going to disable it for now. If the disruption resumes or it has been happening and the filter just needed to be updated, let me know and we'll get it going again — MusikAnimal ^talk 18:41, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

• He's been quiet in that time, so I guess we wait and see what happens. Thanks! Crow^Caw 23:35, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Block large wikitext or image additions

• Task: Prevent non-extended confirmed editors from adding large amounts of content that potentially crashes browsers or prevent them from adding more than a set number of images per edit
• Reason: Edits such as a recent one at User talk:JamesBWatson which added more than 1 MB of wikitext containing images might crash slower PCs when trying to display or edit the page (and SineBot's owner probably wasn't happy either that their computer had to handle such a page). There is no reason I can imagine for a new user to add such a large amount of text to a page except for vandalism purposes. Even our longest article - 1918 New Year Honours - is barely 1 MB large and was not created in a single edit of 1 MB. Since there might be reasons to add a lot of text at once, I propose restricting the right to do so to users that can likely be trusted not to use it for vandalism purposes. Regards SoWhy 08:55, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

(Non-EFM comment) By my interpretation Special:AbuseFilter/812 shouldn't have allowed that. Unsure why it did. – Train2104 (t • c) 12:16, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, except the user was autoconfirmed on account of a bunch of, now deleted, edits, and the filter only checks unconfirmed users. Sam Walton (talk) 12:25, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, we could extend the edit count check; I'd like to see a limit on the number of images added, if that can be reasonably done, as they usually are images and with text of less than 1Mb. This and this are the types of edit we should be looking at. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:39, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ah, I see. Haven't found that one, probably using wrong search terms. Maybe we can change it from autoconfirmed to extendedconfirmed? I would also modifying it to also disallow edits which contain less text but a large number of images because I think one can crash a PC by adding 50 full-size versions of for example File:Museo Soumaya, Ciudad de México, México, 2015-07-18, DD 12.JPG as well despite it being less wikitext. Regards SoWhy 12:41, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Any update on this? JamesBWatson's talk page suffered another such edit just now, most likely by the same troll. Regards SoWhy 14:49, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I've set up filter 848 in trial mode. I'd encourage other EFMs to have a look and fiddle with it if they see fit. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:34, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not really familiar with the edit filter coding but doesn't that filter only trigger if the user adds more than 100 files and more than 400kb of text? But which short file names, you can add much more than 100 files with less than 400kb. On a side note, does any new editor really need to add 400kb of text at once? Maybe we should set up a filter to monitor how often this happens (and by extension, how often non-extended-confirmed users need to make such edits)? I still believe no editor with less than extended confirmed status will ever make such edits in good faith. Regards SoWhy 20:15, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

It's usually best not to publicly disclose the fine details of private filters, as LTA vandals tend to adapt accordingly. So I've adjusted the filter to test a variation of filter 812. The previous version of filter 848 was giving weird inconsistent results, which I kind of expected given the performance issues involved in analysing the text of large contributions. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:04, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for that. Thanks for the change but it seems it still does not catch all such vandalism unfortunately [16]. Regards SoWhy 18:50, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

The filter is still in test mode and did catch those edits. It's been collecting some examples of the false positives it's going to have to deal with which includes relatively new editors reverting vandals who blank relatively large pages. The filter's currently in a state of flux - I think the recent changes by MusikAnimal could probably be adjusted to extend to all namespaces and it should skip the checks for large additions of text. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:19, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I had it going in all namespaces but got a lot of false positives, with regards to addition of images. We could branch out to all talk pages, but I definitely wouldn't include the mainspace, at least in its current fashion. For large addition of text, all namespaces are currently being checked. I think it probably will be OK to go into disallow as it is now, but I'm on Wikibreak for the next five days so I won't be around to monitor :/ Best — MusikAnimal ^talk 19:31, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I've turned this one off for now just because I don't have the bandwith to monitor it. It looks like it may need a little tweaking, there are some occasional false positives. I'm definitely OK with changing 812 to go by edit count, if that helps. Courtesy ping zzuuzz, Samwalton9 — MusikAnimal ^talk 04:34, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Voobly

• Task: Block Voobly from being mentioned on pages it has been spammed to dozens of times. An employee of Voobly once asked for it to be allowed to be mentioned in certain Wikipedia articles, listing those which they were then and later on spammed heavily on. They were rejected by an administrator for obvious reasons of course. [17] But even with the links to their website blocked, they still managed to mention it many times on these websites over the years. Microsoft Ants, Age of Empires, Age of Empires II: The Age of Kings, Age of Empires II: The Conquerors, Midtown Madness 2, Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six: Rogue Spear, Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six

• Reason: [[18]] it says if it becomes a problem again, request this here. I just reverted spam in an article that had the same thing spammed many times before, the spammer having only two other edits both reverted for being vandalism. This is what the Voobly spam looks like whenever it appears. [19] That was added in November, it there for all these months before being noticed. Not sure how often things pop up elsewhere and people take them down. I've removed this spam from other articles many times over the years though. Please keep anyone from mentioning Voobly at all in these articles. Dream Focus 17:38, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

  @Dream Focus: "Voobly" is currently being mentioned in Age of Empires II: The Conquerors in what appears to be encyclopedic information, but correct me if I'm wrong. Is there any other case where mention of Voobly would be appropriate? Note also you can do a simple search to find any instances of the name — MusikAnimal ^talk 03:13, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

  Someone added it back in with a reference that doesn't appear to be a reliable source. Voobly and Gameranger both illegally allow people to play games, pirated or not, usually pirated, although they may try to hide that fact with a lame disclaimer on their sites. If they don't have permission from those that own the games, they can't legally do this. No reason to advertise them by mentioning them at all. Previous additions of this were always IP addresses and new users with no other edits, some clearly working for them. Anyway, best keep it out. Dream Focus 03:26, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

  My feelings on Voobly are that unless/until it is notable enough to warrant its own article, then its presence in articles seems to be little more than promotion/clickbait for that site. It would be sort of like me reviewing movies and then adding them to articles. Plus if they're linking to copyrighted content (which they claim not to) then that's further reason not to be linking to it. Crow^Caw 23:43, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

   Done Added to Special:AbuseFilter/58 — MusikAnimal ^talk 21:01, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Unexplained blanking

• Task: Tag, disallow and warn unexplained page blankings. To what pages and editors does it apply?
• Suggested code:

new_size < 50 
& user_editcount <= 20
& summary  irlike "Blanked |nonsense|false|true|sucks"  &
 ( article_namespace == 0 & 
  ( old_size > 300 &
    ( ! "extendedconfirmed" in user_groups &
      ( 
        
        ! lcase(added_lines) rlike "#redirect|{{((db-(attack|g10))|wi)}}"
      )
    )
  )
)

• Reason: To prevent unexplained blankings from relatively new users Kostas20142 (talk) 18:44, 2 May 2017 (UTC):
• Filter 636 checks for unexplained removals of sourced content. I wouldn't want to see it extended all the way to extended confirmed users, nor namespaces such as user and user talk, nor have it as a prohibition. An edit summary of 'nonsense' or 'false' is one that is more likely to be correct. 'Blanked' is checked by filter 3, 'not like it' is an edit summary I've never seen. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:10, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
•  Not done per above and 3 does almost the same thing, only isolated to unconfirmed users. With some tweaking we could move it to disallow, but we should seek broader input first. There are some cases where blanking is even desirable, such as attack pages — MusikAnimal ^talk 21:35, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

  And on second thought, I would oppose ever disallowing, solely based on WP:BLPEDIT — MusikAnimal ^talk 22:43, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

New User Potential Sock

• Sock Detection: When new users create mutibule accounts, warn, and tag.
• Less Socks: To lesson potental sockpuppetears? DoABarrelRoll.dev(Constable of the WikiPolice) 04:42, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

   Already done 572 (private) does this, but we do not warn or tag. Warnings wouldn't really stop them, and would deter innocent users. Tagging is redundant as we can just as easily go off the abuse log itself — MusikAnimal ^talk 21:25, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

AN/I Troll Filter

• Task: On WP:ANI and AN, disallow all edits by non-autoconfirmed users, (allowing IPs), and disallow all edits by N-AC and IP containing the words "bona, bonadea, and nsmutte", and report to AIV any accounts that attempt to edit ANI
• Reason: There has been a string of troll/vandalism on ANI by socks of these users, ANI has had to be SEMId several times, and SEMI it good enough because we need to allow IP vandal cops to edit the page and contribute. Thanks, d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 14:30, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

• There's already a filter (755 I believe) that takes care of most of the vandalism. It's highly unlikely that edits by non-autoconfirmed users will be disallowed. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 14:56, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 16:05, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

"Vulva" filter

• Task: This filter would tag edits from non-autoconfirmed users and IPs that insert the word "vulva" into articles with "possible vandalism". If this is implemented, other terms that are related to reproduction should probably be added to the terms. (edit: or have it say "addition of terms related to reproduction")
• Reason: This filter is needed because non-autoconfirmed/IPs are sometimes seen to add this, and almost never without the intent to vandalize. But, I think that only tagging should be happen as to not scare away good faith contributors. This should only apply to the usergroups mentioned because we can assume that generally, autoconfirmed users will be adding this in good faith. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 21:59, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

• {Page stalker) @RileyBugz: do you have some diffs to demonstrate the issue? I've not seen this vandalism, to be honest. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:05, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

I recently came across this IP, and I remember another one, but I could not find that one. This was probably a bit of an extreme reaction on my part. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 21:16, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Vierratime vandal

• Task: Filter would tag any addition of "vierratime" or "striveshoot" to any page and tag it as possible vandalism. Random IPs and new editors keep adding these fake shows to various pages (usually voice actors, but other places as well). See here, here, and here for example.
• Reason: Having the edit filter tripped when this is added to a page will help keep on top of them. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:58, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Related to this SPI. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:08, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Same person has been doing it over on ANN, too. See here. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:12, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
• Anyone? I'd do it myself, but I don't know how. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:11, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
• @Nihonjoe:, do you only want these "tagged" or actually stopped? Do you want the editor to be warned? Do they need to be identified separately from all other things that are being tagged/stopped? — xaosflux ^Talk 18:28, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
  • @Xaosflux: Just tagged for now. Tagged and reverted is good. It doesn't happen every day, but in flurries of activity under many different username and IPs. The only consistent thing is those two words. Can they be added to whatever Cluebot checks and auto-reverted? We just want to make sure to catch them all as sometimes they are less obvious (articles that aren't watched as much, etc.) ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:32, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
• @Nihonjoe: is a dynamic log you can look at enough (e.g.:this unrelated log)? — xaosflux ^Talk 19:17, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
  • @Xaosflux: Thinking about it, if it can tag them and revert them (such as via Cluebot), that would save time. I can't think of any instance where they would be adding anything legitimate. Should be in mainspace only, too, as these have been discussed on various talk pages in the past. Don't want to revert those edits. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:14, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Doing... @Nihonjoe: Can you point me to a diff of a recent edit that would match? (Filter 858 being created). — xaosflux ^Talk 22:12, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: There are three at the top of this request. They're a couple weeks old, though, since no one looked at this back then. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:14, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

@Nihonjoe: -OK This is up in "log only" mode right now, you can view the log here (I made one on purpose, reverted since). Please watch for a few days, if it isn't causing issues will tune and change to "disallow" which will prevent the edits from saving. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:20, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: Thanks. I've let people know over at WT:ANIME since this mainly affects articles under them. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:26, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

• Filter created OK, anyone can ping me after a couple of days if this can go from detective to preventative mode. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:29, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Though keep in mind this vandal is not continuous. Rather, s/he hits randomly. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:37, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
    • No worries, mostly to make sure we don't get unexpected false positives. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:22, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
• @Nihonjoe: after ~45 days, there have been 0 hits on this filter - is it still needed? — xaosflux ^Talk 18:47, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

  Guess it would help if I looked at the month! — xaosflux ^Talk 18:48, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

  Heh. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:21, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

RfA math questions

• Task: Disallow edits by IPs to Requests for adminship that add math questions.
• Reason: Just about every RfA lately that has gone on for the full seven days have been semi-protected because of several IPs (presumably the same person) adding math questions. Example: [20]. —MRD2014 📞 contribs 00:40, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

  This has also been going on at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Mathematics (see here for examples). —MRD2014 talk contribs 01:06, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

  N Denied I'm not too worried about RfAs. They don't happen too often, and IP/new account disruption is commonplace and quickly resolved. If we start disallowing questions about math they'll find some other way to troll. As for the refdesk, I assume there are legitimate cases where a math question or something involving math would come up, so it's going to be very tricky to prevent false positives. Overall it doesn't seem like a filter is the best solution here. Sorry! — MusikAnimal ^talk 19:16, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Removed PROD template

• Task: Tag for the removal of PROD templates
• Reason: With some exceptions, removing PROD templates is the legitimate method of objecting to those articles' deletion. The problem is that there are borderline speedy articles marked PROD then forgotten. Someone comes along and removes the tag. The bad article survives, avoiding the AFD process. This tag filter would allow RC patrollers to identify cancelled PROD cases and use our judgment in nominating them at AFD. —Guanaco 16:42, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

This was already attempted as Filter 200, which was disabled per Wikipedia talk:Edit filter/Archive 4#Filter 200, or should the EF be engaged to track non-abusive, non-"wrong" edits?. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 02:28, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Note also that all PROD pagess land in 3 categories - Category:All articles proposed for deletion, Category:All books proposed for deletion‎, and Category:All files proposed for deletion (subject to change if we change the policy on what may be ROD-deleted). If a page exists with no links except to those categories, then its "Related changes" page would show all additions and removals from these categories (see Special:RecentChangesLinked/User:Od Mishehu/cat, although I don;t promise to keep this page having this specific content). A simple search feature, which probably exists in all modern web browsers, can be used to find all instances of "removed from category" on the page. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 02:37, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

"hot100brasil"/"Billboard Brasil"

• Task: Warn users who add "hot100Brasil" or "Billboard Brasil" that their edit may be problematic.
• Reason: Copied from Template talk:Hot100brasil.com: "This editnotice will probably not be relevant for the vast majority of the editors who have to read it, using up their valuable time. Most editors are considerably more likely to make edits completely unrelated to the issue in this notice. Why not create a filter and only warn editors who try to save pages containing the relevant triggers "hot100brasil" and/or "Billboard Brasil"? Target the relevant editors and save the rest of the editors a lot of time. --Bensin (talk) 10:01, 5 June 2017 (UTC)"--Launchballer 10:26, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

This can just be added to Special:AbuseFilter/554. – Train2104 (t • c) 12:41, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done I've added hot100Brasil.com but Billboard Brasil appears to be a legitimate chart that we shouldn't disallow. I've also updated MediaWiki:Abusefilter-top100 (the warning that is shown) to be considerably less bite-y, though it's still a little in-your-face — MusikAnimal ^talk 19:37, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

@MusikAnimal: Thanks. One thought though: According to the editnoteice the problem appear to be that data from hot100brasil.com was falsely labeled as being from Billboard Brasil. Therefore the filter should probably trigger when either of the names appear in the edit. --Bensin (talk) 21:45, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

That might require a separate filter, or make this one more complex. Any idea how often this mislabeling happens? Could you provide some example diffs? — MusikAnimal ^talk 21:53, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

@MusikAnimal: Sorry, I can't. I was not involved in adding the editnotice. I just wanted to limit its scope to not interfere with editing for users making unrelated edits. But from reading the notice the mislabeling appears to be one of the issues the editnotice aims to prevent. Perhaps ask @Nyttend: who created the template? --Bensin (talk) 21:10, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I haven't a clue. Judging by my comments at the template, I just found the same hardcoded editnotice being used in several different places, so I copied the code into a new template and used it to replace the hardcoded noticed. Let me know if you'd like help removing it from various places, or deleting the template altogether (if you merely want to modify the template, you should be able to do that without help), but I can't help you with advice. Nyttend (talk) 23:00, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Okay. Maybe @Kww:, who added the original editnotices, knows how frequently this happens. Or perhaps if there was a discussion before the editnotices were added. --Bensin (talk) 23:23, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

hot100brasil.com was a long-running problem: violated Billboard's copyrights on the "Hot 100" name, and hosted some kind of hobby Brasilian chart that no one could validate or provide sources for. Once Billboard began a legitimate Brasilian operation, people started to falsely label data from hot100brasil.com as having come from Billboard Brasil, because Billboard Brasil didn't make its chart available online and people would just assume that hot100brasil.com was reposting their data. Now, hot100brasil.com is a dead URL, so that problem should have gone away. I don't think there's any reason to retain any of the Brasilian filters any more.—Kww(talk) 01:03, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

@Kww: Was there a preceding discussion before the editnotices were added? --Bensin (talk) 13:00, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

The editnotices specifically? No. There was a consensus that hot100brasil.com was a problem (numerous discussions at WT:Record charts over the years, and it was listed on WP:BADCHARTS since the beginning) but I added the edit notice as just a portion of the ongoing maintenance of the record chart filters.—Kww(talk) 15:33, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

MusikAnimal, I'll leave this discussion now, but just wanted to be clear and complete: this was an issue that used to be a problem, but was resolving itself just as the torches-and-pitchforks brigade came after me and I stopped being active. If I'd remained active on the project, I would have removed this edit notice myself before 2015 was over. I can't do so now, but there's no need for it anymore.—Kww(talk) 18:42, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Filter to stop whitespace spam

• Task: Stop IP editors from repeatedly adding and removing whitespace characters, usually blank lines.
• Reason: There's a Brazilian IP editor who fills up article histories with useless edits. This usually takes the form of adding one or more blank lines, removing them, and repeating until bored. This usually happens across many articles and is a form of crapflooding. For example, see 200.207.148.63 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), Dictator, Initial D (film), and List of current longest ruling non-royal national leaders. This has been previously discussed here and here, and it's currently under discussion at this ANI thread (permalink). Since this is cross-wiki abuse, it might need to be done somewhere else – I'm not really sure of the particulars of this stuff. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:40, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

• Note that virtually none of these edits, in isolation, is problematic. A filter would need to check for repeated add-or-remove lines edits. I know the "repeated attempts to vandalize" and "repeated addition of external links" filters are able to consider multiple edits, and the latter across multiple articles; could we borrow some logic from those filters? Nyttend (talk) 03:55, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

• Testing at 637 without throttling to see what all we're catching. Will update you when I know more — MusikAnimal ^talk 04:11, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

False negatives on filter 29: removing db-multiple criteria, breaking db-multiple from the right

• Task: Catch things like this, which I saw today from a promotional account. This could be used to remove criteria, or change them to weak/nonsensical ones in hope that the real reasons are overlooked.

Also this, where the template is broken from the right. Break the template, and a vicious attack page could be untagged and left up for a long time.

• Reason: Vandals are sneaky, and this wasn't hard to discover. Let's patch filter 29 if we can. —Guanaco 16:05, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

• We'd probably need to catch *any* edit to a line containing db-.* and not just outright removal of the line, as there's many many ways to break the template. There would be a lot of false positives from NPPers who often change the tag when more criteria fit: a7, but its also a copyright, add G12, and similar cases. Crow^Caw 17:43, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Selami Mustafa

• Task: Disallow any edit which adds the text string "Selami Mustafa", either in content or as an edit summary.
• Reason: Long term self promotion via multiple IPs by person adding their name and DoB to numerous articles.
  Wikipedia:Edit_filter/Requested/Archive_7#Selami_Mustafa (September 2015) disallowed "any edit which adds the text string "Selami Mustafa :04/01/1991", either in content or as an edit summary."
  Egotist has now worked out that by omitting the colon "Selami Mustafa 04/01/1991" does not trip the filter - see Special:Contributions/109.92.100.82 for the latest promotional additions.
  Although we could just disallow "Selami Mustafa 04/01/1991", having worked out how to get round the edit filter once, I suspect other variations will follow, hence my suggestion of just "Selami Mustafa".
  On Wikipedia "Selami Mustafa" currently only appears in the Edit filter pages and a warning at User talk:77.46.202.127. It appears to be a relatively unusual name (only 4610 Google matches) so will have minimal collateral damage. - Arjayay (talk) 06:54, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

• @Arjayay: Question: has he been active between 2015 and these latest edits? Crow^Caw 19:16, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

• Crow - I don't know, I only came across this editor when patrolling "Recent changes" on 8 June - I then searched for any other mentions of Selami Mustafa and found the Edit filter request from September 2015 - I was expecting further self-promotional edits, but there have been none - I am happy to reduce my request to "Selami Mustafa 04/01/1991" which, clearly, would not impinge on anyone else. - Arjayay (talk) 07:58, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Blank Pages

(Moved here) There are many blank pages created every day. Some are in Draft space and are not tagged as AfC submissions. Some are in Draft or Userspace and are tagged as AfC submissions. Some are blank except the AfC starter text or maybe the title repeated or a single link inserted. They all gum things up and waste time. Most are "oh look, what does this submit button do" and created by new usrs. I believe no editor should be able to create a page without at least say 150 charactors of content. Perhaps a message pops up "please do not make blank or nearly blank pages" with a link to Wikipedia/sandbox. Legacypac (talk) 23:52, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

@Legacypac: such a limit may be ok for articles but I wouldn't go so far as to say "page". — xaosflux ^Talk 00:22, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

And it would be WP:VP / WP:EFR to reach "the right people". — xaosflux ^Talk 00:25, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Redirects in mainspace would be a valid very short content page. Should be easy to exclude #REDIRECT from the filter. Also existing pages should not be flagged, only new creations. Legacypac (talk) 00:42, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

@Legacypac: I believe this type of filter should already be create-able, checking for namespace and excluding REDIRECT. Or this could be handled by a bot. This isn't exactly a discussion about Harassment so I think the best place to propose this filter would be Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested. — TBolliger (WMF) (talk) 17:44, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

we eventually delete blank or super short pages at A2, G2, G6, or G13 but turning off the tap would be so much better. To estimate the size of this issue look at how many pages go A2, G2, G6 each day plus about more then 600 a year blank or near blank go G13. Legacypac (talk) 18:02, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

@Legacypac: let's work up the "business rules" of this first, sounds like you are proposing:

• Page is new (and)
• Page is in Article or Draft space (and)
• Page does not contain "#REDIRECT"

Is this happening primarily among new users only? (e.g. could we exclude autoconfirmed?)

Should they be warned first? If so, is it OK to let them override the warning?

— xaosflux ^Talk 22:43, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

• Page is a new creation (not a blanking or redirecting of a page)
• Page is in Article or Draft for sure and maybe Userspace?
• Page does not contain #REDIRECT

Many are created by new users but autoconfirmed is too low a threshold, and there is really no obvious reason anyone should be creating really short or blank pages outside redirects. Generally I assume blank or super short pages are tests or honest mistakes. Some are kids typing "Joe Smith is awesome" or just a birthday.

The filter should prevent the creation - user can not save a blank or near blank page. Any user could easily override the filter by adding more text than the minimum. Either they add useful text that gives the next user context or useless text that tells the next user it's just test/vandalism/nonsense and can be speedy deleted. Starting a draft on Joe Smith with zero content is not even an idea for an article or a placeholder. If you really think an article should be written on Joe at least 3 or 4 sentences should be manageable before saving the page. If Joe Smith is famous enough that only his name helps the next user know the intended topic, we have a page already. Legacypac (talk) 00:34, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I strongly oppose applying this to userspace as there are plenty of reasons why people may want to create a short test page - testing (e.g. Hello world, syntax or templates), to-do lists and similar with only one entry to start with, working notes for edits elsewhere, sources to add later, etc. When teaching we tell people to create their userpage with a sentence or two about them (experience is that a bluelinked user page gets people better treatment, particularly from RC patrollers and on busy articles). Only draft articles which are not subsequently expanded are any sort of actual problem, and even then not something MfD can't handle.

I also oppose applying it in draft space as anything stronger than a tag, as new users are understandably cautious and want to see immediate results. We also teach people to save regularly so they don't lose work. If someone has written a first sentence and added a reference (a cognitively complex task for a beginner) they want to save it and see it live, and they should be able to. Anything that stops them will discourage them, which is the opposite of what Wikipedia needs. The problem only comes if they don't then come back to it - which is not something that an edit filter can detect.

In article space, any warning should include a suggestion to start an article in draft space or userspace instead. Thryduulf (talk) 13:18, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I've recently deleted hundred and hundreds of blank or nearly blank drafts as G2 test seen in my CSD log. There are still 200 plus user pages that have been submitted to AfC within the last 6 months [21] but do not qualify as a test. A sentence and a ref together would likely not trip the filter. Useless submissions like "Merry Christmas" would trip the filter. If being required to add a couple sentences before saving scares someone away they are not dedicated enough to finish the draft. I've worked on various writing sites and none of them allow all blank or very short submissions. Your own wordpress blog Hello world is different - no one else needs to patrol your blog. Legacypac (talk) 15:07, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Having hundreds of G2 deletions is much better than applying this filter to userspace or draft space in my opinion. Yes, there are people who will save as little as a few words, with or without a reference, before coming back to add more to it. Writing as little as ''italics'' on a page and saving it is a valid test. Writing Hello{{citation needed}} is a valid test. Writing "I am as student in London, I am interested in writing about tropical fish." is a valid user page. One thing RexxS (and likely other trainers) frequently gets brand new editors to do is create their userpage with only {{new user bar}}. this edit is another example. All of these would be stopped by your filter without benefiting the encyclopaedia at all, and potentially discouraging new users. Yes, even something like a requirement to write a couple of sentences with a reference will scare people away when they are brand new. I created User:Thryduulf/.100 as a test page (see Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback/Archive 2013 5#VE issues with pages starting with a full stop (period) for explanation) in 2013 - your filter would require me to include more text than was required for no benefit.

The filter is valid for mainspace, but there will be far too many false positives and collateral damage in userspace and draft space is much too high. Thryduulf (talk) 16:33, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

a) Do you delete hundreds of totally useless pages a week? it's nice of you to volunteer other people's time. b) this filter would not require any references be added to get around. Only a couple sentences. Everyone knows how to type a couple sentences for a true test. If people teaching wikipedia are encouraging the creation of garbage in draft that has to be deleted, shame on them. They should be teaching how NOT to create crap. C) one's own userpage may be a vaild exception, maybe one's own sandbox, but not in draft space. There are no useful contributions in Draft less than 150 charactors or so. Even a userpage could use 150 charactors min (which includes the title by the way). Legacypac (talk) 22:53, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Are you an expert on how to teach? No, I thought not, otherwise you wouldn't be belittling other people's efforts with abuse like "teaching ... crap". Where the fuck do you get off telling me what I can and can't teach? It is very important to take small steps when teaching unconfident first time editors, and they need to build up any page – including their user page – in small increments. Your assertion that "Even a userpage could use 150 charactors [sic] min" is complete bollocks and illustrates no comprehension of the need to create pages in stages, such as: initial text editing; positioning the cursor; inserting new text; paragraphs; simple templates, and so on. Just because you're able to take these concepts for granted, it doesn't mean that brand new editors have that grasp of the processes involved. It would be complete madness to have an edit filter that disallowed saving a page with less than, say, 30 characters, because a valid first edit could easily be shorter than that. I've had learners write for their first edit as little as "I am interested in music" - 24 characters (although they forgot the full stop). Shame on me for managing to get an extremely nervous older participant to make a first step in editing, eh? Well, I'd love to see how you'd do better by demanding that they write 150 characters in their first attempt. Clueless doesn't even begin to describe that idea. --RexxS (talk) 23:50, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

That post was both abusive and presumptive about my knowledge. Any user that is so nervous on a computer they can't type 150 characters (including the page title and any provided AfC text) before saving, should not be editing Wikipedia just yet. They are likely to do more damage than good. I'm not a big template guy - exempting template space might make a lot of sense. Legacypac (talk) 19:53, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

It was no more abusive than your ill-informed diatribe against trainers. Your lack of knowledge is obvious and you repeat the same mistake immediately. The number of characters a user adds in a first edit is no indication of what they may eventually become capable of. Your judgement on whether editors should be editing is appalling: they won't be doing damage because in guided training sessions they learn in small steps and can work in their sandbox and user page to start with in order to gain confidence. New editors shouldn't develop a phobia of templates, as they will need them to add decent references eventually – and that is a definite skill that they need to master before progressing on to work in article space. Far too many editors add good content, don't know how to reference it, and have their work reverted as their first experience of Wikipedia. It's little wonder that we are not recruiting enough new editors. Have you any more daft ideas that you need debunking, or are we finished for now? --RexxS (talk) 20:36, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I'd be fine with draft space, but definitely not user or template space. G2 doesn't apply in userspace anyway, and it's hard to get a case for U5 out of only a few words. – Train2104 (t  • c) 23:37, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

• Concerned about this. The guidance given for A3 speedy is that users often save the blank page, then edit the page with content. For that reason, "consensus exists" (says the CSD page though they don't link to any discussion) not to tag blank pages for 10 min. I'd be ok with a warning but would prefer not to outright disallow it. Yes, as a NPP I see a lot of these; many are tests but others do end up having content added. Do we have any metrics on how often an A3 speedy is declined for "no longer blank"? Granted a lot of those may be deleted for other reasons later, but often a brand new user's first effort may be saving that blank page... a friendly note not to do that would seem to be preferable to "DENIED!!!!". I also am not sure that the benefit to the encyclopedia of stopping these pages is offset by the cpu cycles spent. A blank page is pretty harmless, after all, and takes as long to delete as it did to create, no? Crow^Caw 18:29, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

If a messge popped up when a person tries to save a blank page that said "you do not appear to have added sufficent content to justify creating this page" (just like what happens when you try to save a page with a blacklisted link or if you try to create a blacklisted or prohibited title) no reasonable user will be offended or frustrated. The current practice results in deletion tags and notices posted to the user's talk page, which is a much less friendly and more confusing situation for the user and creates work for other users and admins plus creates many new talk pages with the deletion notices. While this proposal will slightly how some people create pages, it has a large net benefit with no downside in my view. Legacypac (talk) 18:45, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

• I do agree that such a notice would be less off-putting to a new user than the Giant Red Box that would inevitably follow. This still does seem like a policy change though ("blank pages may not be created in mainspace/draftspace"), so while this page can discuss the technical aspects of such a filter, this might not have the audience required to declare such a change. Crow^Caw 18:53, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank-you. We already have several applicable CSD criteria that would become redundant, its preventative to avoid needing the CSDs. If a policy change is required, what policy and where to propose it? Legacypac (talk) 19:23, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I'd suggest testing the water at somewhere like WP:Village pump (policy) before opening an RfC at the same venue. I'm still opposed to an edit filter that disallows short pages, but I would happily support a filter that popped up a note saying something like "That's a pretty small page you're trying to save there – are you sure you want to save it?" in the same sort of way that I get a reminder when I forget to add an edit summary. --RexxS (talk) 19:38, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Help needed for bnwiki

Hi, I'm from Bengali Wikipedia. We don't have any expert, so i request here. I'm trying to create a Edit filter to prevent adding more than 40-50% non-Bengali word (except english parameter like "Article, Source, Date etc") to file namespace. so far i'm able to do this.

article_namespace == 6 & (
    (old_size == 0|edit_delta > 500|length (rmwhitespace(added_lines)) > 800) & (
      (rcount ("[অআইঈউঊঋএঐওঔকখগঘঙচছজঝঞটঠডঢণতথদধনপফবভমযরলশষসহড়ঢ়য়ৎংঃঁািীুূৃেৈোৌৰৱ১২৩৪৫৬৭৮৯০\-\|\{\=]", added_lines) / (length (rmwhitespace(added_lines)) + 1)) < 0.2
    )
  )

Problem is this code also count english parameter with other non-bengali word but i want to not count them. Here are some example what i want:

|Article= অঅ (Ok. 0% non-Bengali word. Filter shouldn't count |Article= as non-bengali word)

|Article= aঅ (Ok. 50% non-Bengali word. Filter shouldn't count |Article= as non-bengali word)

|Article= aa (Not Ok. more that 50% non-Bengali word. Filter shouldn't count |Article= as non-bengali word)

How can i do that? Thanks --Aftabuzzaman (talk) 19:40, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

The "autism" string

Hello - I recently asked for the word "autism" to be added to the blacklist, and it was indeed done; however, recently I noticed an account with the string "autistic" which was not flagged by DQB. Would someone be able to add "ic" to the filter, next to this string? This particular string is currently right at the bottom of the blacklist. Thanks in advance. Patient Zero^talk 12:42, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Pinging Od Mishehu as he added this string, and two days have passed since I posted this. Patient Zero^talk 10:58, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I can't remember doing this, and my search for such edits as far back as 2014 gives no results. Can someone please help me find this filter? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:21, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

[22] DQBot has not been doing UAA since around March of this year (no I don't know). This isn't a filter thing. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:46, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:Album ratings

• Task: Disallow any editors from adding extra reviews like this in the template, while the guidelines clearly says only add ten reviews, and these editors keep adding The Needle Drop. See here, here and here for example.

• Reason: These edits keep happening because of this video, since then editors who have no experience with Wikipedia start adding The Needle Drop in the template, and it doesn't help that The Needle Drop is not an reliable source (WP:ALBUMAVOID). TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 08:41, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

• Is the request to stop "rev11" from being added to the infobox, or from Needle Drop in particular, or both? I suspect that fans would quickly figure out that rev11 was not allowed and would simply replace one of the ten with their preferred review, and it is probably easier to edit the template to ignore rev11 and higher if there is consensus for <=10, though the same caveat applies. Also, with no opinion on Needle Drop as a source, I do note that it has been a few years since the discussion linked from ALBUMAVOID, which didn't really arrive at a conclusive consensus on when/how to use his reviews. As an "up and coming reviewer" a few years ago, today he may very well be considered ok to include, so perhaps a new rfc should be had before we go about the nuclear option based on a 3 year old talk page discussion. In the meantime, bookmarking [23] can certainly help. Crow^Caw 20:11, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

@Crow: Well I was requesting to stop editors to adding reviews more than ten in the infobox, and if you don't know there is a discussion just recently about rather The Needle Drop should count as an reliable source or not. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 16:29, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks for that link, that's the sort of discussion I'd hope to see. Regarding preventing 11+ reviews, I'm still hesitant to use an EF for that, since the template instructions specifically say: It is recommended to include no more than 10 reviews, but you can add more in exceptional circumstances.... The EF can't determine what an "exceptional circumstance" is, so it would impose a hard limit of 10 for everyone which essentially overrides that guidance. If the determination is made to do a hard cap at 10, then I still think changes to the template would more efficiently impose that, and would not result in comparing every edit to WP against the Edit Filter (which is what would happen). Crow^Caw 21:45, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

@Crow: I see your concern, so you saying it's pointless to request an edit filter on it, because the guidelines says it's okay to add more reviews only if necessary, right? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 17:40, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

• That's how I see it yes. We'd be restricting an action that is specifically allowed. Crow^Caw 23:06, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

@Crow: I see your point. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 18:31, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Fouad

Just wanted to ask on behalf of Kudpung whether the following is feasible: a filter that finds new accounts whose usernames include "Fouad". In Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fouadadanmp3, we've had over a dozen socks in just a couple of days, whose names all contain "Fouad". GAB^gab 13:24, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

This sounds like something better accomplished by the Meta titleblacklist? – Train2104 (t • c) 14:55, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

• And indeed it has been brought up there already: MediaWiki talk:Titleblacklist. I offered a regex that should do the trick (if we support lookaheads). Crow^Caw 00:31, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Large creations in single edit by inexperienced users

Per a conversation that happened on my talk page this past week, would it be possible to have an edit filter that tags article creations in one edit over X number of bytes by non-extended confirmed editors? This would be helpful in reviewing possible commissioned works as this is typically a hallmark of undeclared paid editing. Pinging @Kudpung and Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: since they were involved with the original discussion. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:40, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks- I forgot to say over there, but we do have edit filter ?630 (not an EFM so can't see it), and here's it in action. User:Blondehippo/sandbox looks a likely candidate for a start!  ;) — fortunavelut luna 16:50, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

• MusikAnimal, do you know if this would be possible? Sorry for the ping to you, but thought it worth asking someone specific since this hasn't received any comments. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:09, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, definitely. How many bytes are we talking about? I've got Special:AbuseFilter/867 running in log-only, set for new articles over 5000 bytes.
    There is also 829 which has proved to be fairly effective at identifying paid editing (or otherwise, users trying to get around patrollers). It is private, but soon we should (hopefully) have a new user right ^(permalink) to hand out to people like you so that you can see the logs :) — MusikAnimal ^talk 15:28, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
    • Thanks for that. I was thinking somewhat lower. 2000 might capture a bit too much, but 2500-3000 would capture the shorter BLPs that are actually of the most concern for things such as coatrack articles and other real world implications. If you think that's too low or would have too high a false positive rate, I'll defer to your judgement on this. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:35, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni and Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: The filter as currently configured looks for articlespace creations only. The example brought up above (User:Blondehippo/sandbox) would not have been caught. Do you want this to be all namespaces? – Train2104 (t • c) 18:17, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I think the filter FIM mentioned above (630) does a good job of catching these type of moves using the page move feature, so we have them captured on that end. Many of the commissioned works are copied and pasted from the sandbox into article space, rather than moved, so this catches those that way. My preference would to be to have a more focused filter here since articles are our most visible content. If others think it is best to expand to all pages, I won't oppose it though either. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:25, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

No, you know what's best. I don't know what I'm talking about: but nobody's noticed me treading water yet! ;) Canny on, — fortunavelut luna 18:46, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

>2000 is a big edit. That would catch this[24] and [25]. Let try it at 2000 and see what we get. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:06, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

IguanaFix would likely be excluded because it took place over multiple edits, and the point of this filter is to catch the blatanting obvious single edit creations like we saw with this sock farm. Dronstudy would also probably skip it because it converts a redirect to a page, but I think is a better example of why a lower threshold might be needed. MusikAnimal, would it be possible to update the filter to also include large edits that convert redirects to pages? I know we do this at Special:NewPagesFeed, but as you know I'm the end outcome guy, not the technical knowhow guy. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:16, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Sure, it's now checking for redirects that became articles. I've also lowered the check to 2,000 bytes, but forewarning, this will cause a lot of false positives. The likelihood of a new, innocent user creating an article over just 2,000 bytes is pretty good, methinks. We're not tagging so this is fine, you just might have more to dig through when trying to find the actual paid editing — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:41, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, MusikAnimal. Doc James, see the response above re: 2000 bytes. This has been very successful just in the past 24 hours at 3000 bytes picking up blatant commissioned works. I'll keep an eye on it over the weekend and see if 2000 brings us too many false positives to be useful. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:44, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

@MusikAnimal and Doc James:, I think upping this back to 3000 is ideal. This is catching all of the low-level footballers and the like because of the infoboxes. Thanks to both of you for your help on this. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:35, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Done — MusikAnimal ^talk 18:53, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

• Question -- would the deleted article be removed from the log eventually? Looks like it would a larger and ever growing collection of articles, so the "purge" function would be useful, I think. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:28, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

  No, deleted articles aren't removed from edit filter logs, but the links will become red. Not sure what you mean by "purge" function. The logs are permanent, meaning entries cannot be removed. Hope this helps! — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:41, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Altering County Londonderry to County Derry

• Task: Disallow any edits that change text from "County Londonderry" to read "County Derry"?
• Reason: In Northern Ireland there is a county called County Londonderry that some people do not like the name of. As a result there are many editors, mainly IP editors, who like to come onto Wikipedia and change it from County Londonderry to County Derry. The editors who alter it are of the possible mindset that London is not acceptable in the name of a county in Ireland (despite the fact that was the name it was created as) and some believe incorrectly that it used to have a different name of County Derry (when in fact prior it was called County Coleraine. This is all documented in the Ireland Manual of Style (WP:IMOS) with the consensus. These edit patterns, often with the edit summary of "typo" have resulted in multiple pages being protected and these edits happen on average at least once a day to an article on Wikipedia, often multiple articles, and it creates a lot of work to keep reverting and tidying them up. The current method of finding these edits is to see what links to the County Derry article (which is a redirect), but sometimes it's just pure text that is altered which is harder to locate. This filter will not completely solve the problem as there may be other ways around it, but it will eliminate the 95% of the pattern. Or at the very least prevent new editors and IPs from performing these edits, which thinking about it may be better. Canterbury Tail talk 13:32, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Anyone think this is something doable? Canterbury Tail talk 13:38, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

UAK account creation

• Task: Identify accounts created by the UAK long-term abuser. At least log accounts with "armour" in the name, maybe filter creator can see other possibilities in the LTA notes (*Kid and *GD are noticeable).
• Reason: Get ahead of repeat vandalism by this LTA and perhaps identify otherwise missed accounts. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:33, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

@Bri: I've modified 579 which will help identify sock accounts -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 15:36, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Incorrigible/Team UCLA socks

I would like the community to consider adding in a filter that could identify likely socks of User:Incorrigible Troll. The user creates a new sock every few days, then sends the socks to harass me (User:Purplebackpack89) The hallmarks are this:

1. The username usually contains "Team UCLA" or "Purplebackpack89 retire" in it
2. The edits usually consist of saying something along the lines of "ban Purplebackpack89" or "retire Purplebackpack89" (often accompanied by vandalizing my userspace or tagging my userspace for deletion)

pbp 13:38, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Shiwam Kumar

• Task: It should detect or stop the creation of pages and addition of edits containing "Shiwam Kumar" and variants if possible.
• Reason: Needed to stop a sockpuppet from self-promotion. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shiwam Kumar Sriwastaw. Many thanks if this can be done. We're all sick of playing whack-a-mole. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:48, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  • And "Shivam Kumar", as the "v" and "w" have been used interchangeably. Two current articles, Khatmal E Ishq and Giani Zail Singh Campus College of Engineering & Technology, legitimately have the "v" variant, and none currently have the "w" variant. Largoplazo (talk) 00:19, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Good thinking. And here is a list of all the socks to get an idea of variants: Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Shiwam Kumar Sriwastaw. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:37, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

• Watching on filter 861. Crow^Caw 17:45, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

• Is it doing anything? The madness continues. Or is this just an observation stage, to make sure the filter is catching the right edits? in any event, I had meant to suggest a regular expression, assuming that's what edit filters use: /shi+[vw]a+m ?k(um+a)?r ?sh?ri[vw]/i Largoplazo (talk) 19:21, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

• Yep in watch only mode to ensure no legit edits get caught up. Crow^Caw 16:21, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
• Disallowing on Filter 871 872. Crow^Caw 19:50, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Dick's Sporting Goods vandal

• Task: Detect edits with the word "Dick" repeated many times, such as this, coming from a rotating IP range, which have resulted in extended protection for pages such as Dick's Sporting Goods and Dick's Sporting Goods Park.
• Reason: Prevent the vandalism without keeping the pages protected. Home Lander (talk) 17:58, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

• Are they only targeting these articles? Crow^Caw 19:51, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

• Pages have been protected. Crow^Caw 22:45, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Sounds like this is something that ClueBot should be detecting and auto-reverting. Canterbury Tail talk 13:34, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Some dude dropping his name

Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TV5Ozamiz--I'm sure there's something one of you clever folks can do. Much appreciated! Drmies (talk) 15:44, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

• Added to 871 with the other recent name dropper. Crow^Caw 21:05, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks! Drmies (talk) 22:05, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Derp vandal filter

• Task: Although unfortunately not all of them, many mass-reverts of the derp rvv vandal include edit summaries like "rvv derp vandal" and variants. It may be useful to immediately report and/or prevent and/or block these.
• Reason: This pervasive vandal edits from proxies, thus from many IP addresses. It basically patrolls new changes but reverts indiscriminately to cause a type of denial of service attack. Unlike normal patrolling none of those reverts are constructive; the goal is to disrupt normal editing, critical functionality of Wikipedia. —PaleoNeonate – 02:36, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to decline this request, not because the filter isn't useful for this, but because it's being already handled. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:21, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much, —PaleoNeonate – 17:16, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Warn about broken proxies

• Task: The filter should detect any replacements of < with &lt; or & with &amp; (particularly &nbsp; with &amp;nbsp;) or any similar entity replacements which might turn up. It should apply to both unregistered and registered users, but experienced editors can probably be excluded as they're less likely to do this. There are some examples in the link below. One good example is this
• Reason: This was requested at EFN. The reason for the filter is that broken proxies mess up articles, and some ISPs have broken proxies. It's similar in purpose to filter 464 and might want to be merged with it (that filter might also need a little work in any case). -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:23, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Testing at 773: Playing with an idea at Special:AbuseFilter/773, though there may be a better way of doing it -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 18:35, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

• Made a slight tweak to that. If that makes it too restrictive, feel free to revert. Crow^Caw 19:23, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

• Moved to Special:AbuseFilter/879 (log only for a moment), thanks for the tweaks Crow I've decided to keep the filter separate from 464 as I believe zzuuzz would want this filter to have a specific warning? -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 07:19, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks, looks good so far. Yes, I think it'll need its own warning (but can probably still be eventually merged with 464). I'll keep an eye on how it does. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 07:55, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
• Also I meant to add, we're currently testing for > instead of <. I'm not sure if that's a typo or really clever thinking? I also think we can probably get some leverage from testing for </ or <! (or lack thereof) instead of just <, but I'll keep a watch on that. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:02, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

🤔🤔🤔 and similar symbols

• Task: add a filter for meaningless "Emoji's" and similar symbols
• Reason: There is a clear increase in the use of Emojis (or whatever these things are called) being added to articles, leaving articles looking like this
  I cannot see there being a legitimate use for such symbols in articles, except possibly in an article on such sybmols. Is there a way of preventing all such symbols? or do we need to request, and block, each and every symbol individually? - Arjayay (talk) 18:35, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

  We do already have Filter 680, and we're specifying them in unicode character ranges. I think we just need to figure out the correct range for 🤔(U+1F914) or anything similar. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 06:35, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Removal of undisclosed paid templates

• Task: Tag edits removing the template Undisclosed paid (aliases: UDP, UPE) from mainspace and draft articles. Since just over 170 articles have the tag, the filter can apply to all users.
• Reason: Severity of the issue and multiple instances of the tag being removed out of process, for example [26], [27], [28], [29] - despite a relatively small number of articles with the tag. --Rentier (talk) 19:58, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

• Can the filter also tag, with a different message, the edits removing the templates COI and Advert (and a few others, I can make a list)? They are often removed in bad faith - examples: [30], [31], [32] Thanks, Rentier (talk) 10:48, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Second this. I reckon it will have a lot of return for little outlay  :) — fortunavelut luna 10:51, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, agree that this is needed. jcc (tea and biscuits) 20:06, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Tracking removal of the aforementioned templates at Filter 878. They probably belong in the same filter, and one filter can only apply the same tags. And we'd normally only include relatively new users. Continued suggestions are invited.. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 06:11, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, zzuuzz! It's already turning up actionable results. Makes one think how many improper removals were missed before. Rentier (talk) 10:50, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Nice work indeed. Why didn't we think of this a decade ago?! SmartSE (talk) 13:12, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Edit filter

• Task: Title Blacklist accounts with TIB, (TIB, CSS and (CSS. Prevent accounts from being created. (Case Sensitive)
• Reason: This filter is necessary to prevent sockpuppets of 118 alex from creating more sockpuppets. These used to be buses prefix from 2 defunct Singapore Bus Companies.27.100.18.158 (talk) 05:37, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

This is not a good use of the abuse filter. Username blacklisting occurs at meta:Title blacklist. — JJMC89 (T·C) 15:38, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Name-dropper vandal

• Task: Add a filter for "Gledis Kapidani".
• Reason: A serial vandal (original account being User:Legendado plus subsequent socks) has been adding the name "Gledis Kapidani" to the Teddy Atlas article, as well as here and here throughout the year; most recently [33]. Such edits have been determined to be hoaxes, and the name-dropped person is not notable whatsoever. The filter should work very well as it is the only term that the vandal is insistent on adding. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 14:17, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

• Added to name-dropper filter. Crow^Caw 21:46, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Will it also prevent an article of that name being created? The user has tried twice in the past despite AfDs. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 21:53, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

• Without giving too much away, I'll keep an eye on it. Crow^Caw 22:04, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Not sure if this is possible

I've been the victim of an enduring harassment campaign from several IP editor's and a couple registered editors. They're all over the map, so blocks, even rangeblocks would not be effective, besides which the IPs involve among others two University networks. If it is possible, can you filter any edit adding a pipe to my username in user talk space where the pipe does not equal my username? This getting pretty annoying. John from Idegon (talk) 01:57, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I'll not lie, it's tricky even expending disproportionate resources and being easy to work around. We should at least get some examples, one being 107.77.205.230 (talk · contribs) on 17 Sep. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 07:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

IPA

• Task: Tag edits where International Phonetic Alphabet (phonetic pronunciation) is added. This is a common practice on pages where pronunciation is added to foreign names and words.
• Reason: Most IPA edits are WP:OR and mostly go unchallenged. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 12:31, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

• Q: Are there any stats as to how often these IPA additions are blatantly wrong, vs to-may-to/to-mah-to? This seems like a costly filter for what it'd be returning. Crow^Caw 19:18, 1 October 2017 (UTC)