Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested/Archive 15

< Wikipedia:Edit filter | Requested
Latest comment: 4 years ago by Certes in topic Number change
Archive 10←Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17→Archive 20

Common Vandal Summaries filter

Latest comment: 5 years ago18 comments4 people in discussion

Task: Log edit summaries according to I? ?(([Tt]ypo)? ?[Ff]ix(ed)? ?[Aa]? ?([Ss]ome)? ?([Tt]ypo(es)?s?|[Gg]rammar)?|[Aa]dded [Aa]? ?([Ss]ome)? ?([Ll]inks?|[Cc]ontent))

Reason:Building on the request above, maybe it's a good idea to have a log-only(do nothing), or possibly tag filter for common edit summaries used by vandals. People could patrol that as a further refinement on the existing maybe bad edit recentchanges filter. [Username Needed] 19:42, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

@Username Needed: I like the idea of a log-only or tagging filter for generic vandal summaries; I'm kind of surprised we don't have one already. I'd also add "made it better" and some of the milder ones that were taken out of 384 ("lol", "blah", "crap", "was here", etc.). But I'm hesitant to name it "Common Vandal Summaries" for something as innocent as "Fixed a typo". Can you think of a better name, that won't offend people when it shows up in their filter log after they fix an actual typo with the summary "fixed a typo", but still hints to patrollers why it was logged? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 17:19, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I've looked through some of the "Added content" section of the data dump and it might be useful to exclude anything that adds a <ref> tag. That should also reduce the FP rate considerably. (Although it depends on whether you think that adding unsourced information should be excluded or not, otherwise it removes a much smaller amount) [Username Needed] 09:02, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

@Username Needed: So. I think I see what's going on here. That vast majority of hits are for exactly (up to capitalization) the phrases "added content" and "fixed typo". So it's not so much a case of sneakiness, but laziness. The mobile web site suggests Example: Fixed typo, added content so that's what people are typing when they think they have to type something there. Either that or I have much narrower definition of "typo" than most people. Anyway, I've disabled the filter for now while I think about this. 3700 hits is enough data. I'm wondering if instead MediaWiki:Mobile-frontend-editor-summary-placeholder could use some refinement. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:29, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

@Username Needed: I've re-enabled it for now, with some edit_delta checks. We have other filters that check for unreferenced content, so I'm only logging "Added content" when the edit_delta <= 0. For "Fixed typo", I've gone with your suggestion of only checking edit_delta > 10 | edit_delta < -10. I've also created 981 , named, in fact, "Common vandal summaries". Right now it's just checking for the word list from 384 . See Wikipedia:Edit_filter/False_positives/Archive_96#149.135.11.157 for why it was removed from that filter.
@Galobtter: In that thread you mentioned some stuff from other filters. Since the 981 is not disallowing yet, now would be a good time add anything you had in mind. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 01:31, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Hmm, I don't remember what those filters were; as a sidenote, you need !summary rlike ("\[\[Special:Contributions.*(" + match + ".*)") from 225 , otherwise all reversion of users with bad names will be blocked. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:21, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
I think that 981 can be set to tag - I just looked through the first 50 and found only 3 FPs - 2 of which were issues with lol (which may have to be removed from this filter) [Username Needed] 20:21, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Add a common phrase from the Bee Movie's entry to catch it in 614

Latest comment: 4 years ago14 comments7 people in discussion
  Done The bit in 614 is working okay afaics. --qedk (t 桜 c) 14:21, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

  Moved from Wikipedia:Edit filter/False positives/Reports § 213.105.34.114
  • Task: Catch a common phrase from the introduction to the Bee Movie. A few possible ones, that don't violate cr, might be
  • laws of aviation
  • course, flies anyway
  • [Oo]oming (Would need to be an isolated match, otherwise it'd match on, say, brooming or zooming)
  • [Oo]oh, black and
  • [Bb]uzz[,.] [Bb]uzz[,.] [Bb]uzz[,.] (Much later into the movie. Wouldn't catch intro as well)
  • Reason: Catch most commonly copy-pasted portions of the bee movie. The Laws of Aviation intro is probably the most common, so go something from it (The first 2 suggustions) is probably best moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 14:08, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm going to address the two intro ones here. laws of aviation is vague and might lead to false positives. course, flies anyway is a much better option, though I think bee, of course, flies is a bit better than that. It's unlikely to appear in other sentences, and the phrase "of course" is against the MOS, so even if there was a false positive from this, it would still block something that would likely be disruptive. InvalidOS (talk) 14:24, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
InvalidOS, fat little body off, bees don't care what humans think should also be quite uncommon. moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 14:43, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
@Moonythedwarf: fat little body off would also work well. Any other sentence using it would be against the MOS or a violation of WP:NPA or WP:BLP, so it seems to be a really good portion to work with. InvalidOS (talk) 16:00, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
InvalidOS, So, maybe fat little body off and be, of course, flies are the best 2 options moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 16:01, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
@Moonythedwarf: Yes. Also, you typed "be" instead of "bee". InvalidOS (talk) 16:03, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
@InvalidOS:: fixed: b, of course, flies --moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 16:09, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
I think all known laws of aviation could work better since that would catch the format "According to all known laws of aviation (something completely irrelevant)". I've seen it on Wikipedia and plenty of times elsewhere on the internet. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 14:52, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Also add "We're bees". That is one of the common vandal phrases. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 15:06, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
According to all known laws of aviation, Wikipedia filters can't catch Bee Movie script vandalism. The filter, of course, catches it anyway. creffpublic a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 15:13, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Creffpublic: black and yellow black and yellow black and yellow.. oooh! edit disallowed!
my joke is terrible but I shall say it anyways moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 15:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
FYI 614 currently catches "aviation\s*,[\s\S]*?there\s*is\s*no[\s\S]*?bee[\s\S]*?be\s*able\s*to\s*fly". Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:51, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Globe Elections UN

Latest comment: 4 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

Log editing mass message lists by new users

Latest comment: 4 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

I've seen a number of times new users or IPs messing around with mass message lists. Generally, those edits are misguided, and are reverted. To better track them, can a filter be created? Something like 

old_content_model = 'MassMessageListContent' &
!("confirmed" in user_groups)

Examples:

If edits like this go unnoticed, people just stop receiving mass messages with no clear reason why. These are just a few examples. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 04:21, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

@DannyS712:   Done, see 1031 (hist · log). I was think that maybe most edits to MMS lists from non-confirmed users should be disallowed, with the following exceptions:
  • Adding/removing self (obviously)
  • Removing any IP. (In case someone on a sticky dynamic IP wants to subscribe to a list, and remove their old IP when it changes or they register an account)
But lets see if there's anything else that comes up, first. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:24, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Oops, looks like QEDK already did the same thing at 1027 (hist · log). Not sure which one should be disabled... Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:49, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
@Suffusion of Yellow: 31 is more efficient - edits to mass message pages are less likely than edits by non-confirmed users DannyS712 (talk) 23:33, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
@Suffusion of Yellow: Mine is a test filter, feel free to disable anytime! --qedk (t 桜 c) 08:38, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Just to add, I do not think a filter seems feasible here, better to pre-empt protect if they face vandalism, IPs having nothing to do with MassMessages. --qedk (t 桜 c) 08:40, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Preventing redirects to Human penis by non auto-confirmed or confirmed users

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Task - prevent users without auto-confirmed or confirmed rights to create redirects to the article Human penis.

Reason: A lot of bad redirects to various penis-related articles have been brought to RfD lately, and additions of redirects to this topic by new users are not likely to be productive. Human penis seems to get the worst of it, so requesting a possible edit filter test for redirects to that target. Hog Farm (talk) 00:18, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Non-confirmed users can't create pages in mainspace, so a filter is not necessary. Most of those dumb redirects were created before that restriction was in place. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 17:49, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes, most look pretty old. Filter 384 (hist · log) also stops most additions of "penis" by non-confirmed editors. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:51, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Airline Reservation Number Spam

Latest comment: 4 years ago11 comments6 people in discussion

Thanks MilborneOne (talk) 18:07, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

@MilborneOne: Looks like Ohnoitsjamie did something about this, but some variants are slipping through, e.g. Special:Diff/939143508. I'm testing something sketchier at 1013 (hist · log) (log-only); I'll add it to the live filter if I don't see any FPs. If you see any that aren't logged by 1013, let me know. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:19, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Made a few adjustments to the live filter. OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:31, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm thinking either reservation number is 1-([0123456789]){2,5}-\1{2,5}-\1{2,5} or reservation number is (([0123456789]){2,5}-){1,3}\1{2,4) would work well? I can't see the diff Yellow provided, as the revision was redacted, so I can't really see why it slipped through. I have provided the best thing I can provide. InvalidOS (talk) 12:53, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
@InvalidOS: Thanks, but I went with something a little different. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:55, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
@Suffusion of Yellow: Dammit, should've thought about the fact that most LTA filters are private. InvalidOS (talk) 13:34, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Interesting to see they are changing format to "1-800-304-4381 customer care" presumably to get around the filter. MilborneOne (talk) 18:22, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
@MilborneOne: Added more tests to 1013. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:53, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
How many articles should contain a phone number in the first place? creffpublic a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 13:56, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
I dunno about articles, but I recall that we considered using the titleblacklist to prevent certain phonenumber like titles and found a large amount of FPs. JoJo Eumerus mobile (main talk) 13:17, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Bruh filter

Latest comment: 4 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion
Yeah, I debated about that. Semi protection prevents all IPs/new users from editing directly and pending changes requires review thus other editor's time. Since the issue is very specific, thought I can at least propose a filter and see what happens but admittedly I am not that familiar with the resources it takes to add/maintain a filter. Thanks for your response @DannyS712:. S0091 (talk) 21:21, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
S0091, Pending changes would be OK. Guy (help!) 13:20, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
I'd say add "bruh?" to a test filter, as I could see it being a common vandal phrase. InvalidOS (talk) 15:09, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Looks like Ohnoitsjamie already added this to 614 (hist · log). Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 00:29, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect and slanderous information was added to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_E._Chase

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I deleted the information. I am not experienced enough to know whether I should have performed UNDO instead.

Please identify the editor or create a filter that blocks him/her from reposting this type of information. There was no footnote identifying the source.

I identified the date of the posting from the history. See the lines below copied from the history.

curprev 05:38, 2 October 2019‎ 65.246.252.82 talk‎ 25,482 bytes +4‎ undo curprev 05:38, 2 October 2019‎ 65.246.252.82 talk‎ 25,478 bytes +115‎ undo Unclefeet (talk) 16:54, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Unclefeet, I'll request redaction on the offending edits. I'm surprised we don't have "sex offender" as a filter term...edit filter folks, maybe a candidate for 189 ? creffett (talk) 18:28, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

بەکارھێنانی وشە نالەبارەکان

Latest comment: 4 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion
  Resolved
--qedk (t 桜 c) 15:13, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

  • Task: Matches strings (bad words in pages) and notify good users by a tag, But for ckbwiki (not enwiki). Here are some of rules; It:
    • matches only whole words.
    • matches words that contains this string.
    • matches only whole words on non-talk pages.
  • Reason: We want to catch bad words used by bad users easily and revert them quickly, but for our project (ckbwiki). ⇒ AramTalk 11:22, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi Aram. I find your rules are a bit confusing. Please consider the following simple filter. I'll discuss a few things below, because I'd like to see that you understand what it's doing so we can figure out if it's what you need. 

badwords := "\b(badword1|bad2|bad3)\b";

page_namespace % 2 == 0 &
user_editcount < 100 &
added_lines irlike badwords &
!removed_lines irlike badwords

The first line sets up a variable containing the bad words (regex) - more on that in a minute. The next line checks whether the namespace is an even number, which on most wikis means non-talk pages. I assume it's the same for ckbwiki. The next line restricts the filter to new users. We usually find this type of check useful for several reasons, but whether you have this check, and how you set it is up to you. On enwiki we often check instead whether a user is in the autoconfirmed user group. The next (and final) two lines check whether the text was added and not previously in the existing part being edited.

The regex variable contains the \b character, which is used to mark the ends of words (ie whole words only). If you want to match words that contain the string instead of match whole words, then you need to remove this. The words are separated by the pipe character (|). Using irlike means the check is case-insensitive. -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:52, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

@Zzuuzz: Thank you for your replying and your whole attempt! Now, The variable (badwords) is so helpful, but in our language we have suffix and prefix to the words (ie ABC correspond with badwords variable, but ABCZ or ZABC not). So, can you identify another variable for these cases? is there any tag? and How can i test the filter? Thanks! ⇒ AramTalk 14:25, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
  • If you remove the \b then the filter will match the string appearing anywhere. So badwords = "ABC|XYZ"; will match ABC, ZABC, ABCZ, etc. Obviously you need to be more judicious in this sort of filter to limit the amount of false positives. CrowCaw 18:15, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Another alternative of course, might be to include the prefixes and suffixes: "\b(ABC|ABCZ|ZABC)\b". As for testing, if you know of some recent edits you would want to filter, you can use ckb:Special:AbuseFilter/test and ckb:Special:AbuseFilter/examine. Alternatively you could create a new filter which is enabled but doesn't do any actions, and make your own edits to test it. In any case, you should use the filter in this 'log-only' mode for a while to make sure it does what you want, before thinking about adding tags. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:44, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
If you search through the html source where the tag is displayed, you might see a class beginning 'mw-tag-'. -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:26, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
@Zzuuzz: I really thank you! ^_^ You can archive this section now. Warm regards! ⇒ AramTalk 17:52, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Template:Unblock filter

Latest comment: 4 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion
Ran a filter to check how serious it was, and it seems like a minor problem, either way, it made more sense to do it via the templates, so done and   Implemented. --qedk (t 桜 c) 15:11, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

  • Task: To block edits that attempt to add Template:Unblock outside the user-talk namespace.
  • Reason: Due to its nature the template has no constructive use outside the user-talk namespace. Also two edits where this was put in articlespace went unnoticed for over a month. ミラP 14:11, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Here's some code for a filter:
!("confirmed" in user_groups) &
page_namespace != 3 &
added_lines contains "{{unblock}}"
Not sure if the filter is really necessary, but the template has been placed outside of the User talk namespace before, so the filter certainly wouldn't hurt. InvalidOStalk 14:41, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Just hide the template if placed in mainspace and put the page in Category:Pages with templates in the wrong namespace. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 14:49, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Nice, I wasn't aware of that category. I'll look into proposing an edit for the unblock template to add that feature. creffpublic a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 18:49, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Kiwi Farms

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Preventing un-reseanable templates edit

Latest comment: 4 years ago11 comments3 people in discussion

Task; To disallowed un-resealable editing in template tags.

  • Reason: It will help a lot in my editing and contribution I don't have much to say as regarded to my contribution, even as not permanent right, is just for sometimes like 3/4 years. Thanks. (F5pillar 19:46, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
F5pillar: How will this help a lot in [your] editing and contribution. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 19:56, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
If you want to apply for user rights, visit WP:PERM. Thanks. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 19:58, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Here is it CAPTAIN MEDUSA.
  • sometimes i do feel discouraged in editing an template, or discussion in articles which are tag with (AFC/AFC). Which I have much ideas on some discussion to give, I know I can still made a conclusion but I feel discouraged to do that. That's why I am requesting for it.

BUT HERE IS THE MAIN AIM OF REQUESTING THIS.

  • just to get control or address common harmful and the pattern of editing. Thanks for this. (~~

(F5pillar 20:27, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

F5pillar umm... I still don't understand your vision of Preventing un-reseanable templates edit. I am sorry, but can you expalin what the filter is supposed to do? ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 20:31, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
F5pillar, I literally cannot understand what you are asking for here. What specific actions do you want a filter to prevent? "Unreasonable" isn't specific enough.creffpublic a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 20:32, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
CAPTAIN MEDUSA to identify harmful edit, like comparing edits, understanding patterns of edition, such as harmful ones. And as that Filter address the issue in Filter Manager group
Creffett. Prevent harmful edit, and knowing the pattern or style of editing by user or similar way of editing. Thanks. (F5pillar 20:51, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
F5pillar you need to elaborate more on this. What kinds of edits? Are you referring to sockpuppets? or LTA? ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 20:54, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Non of it, but it is just very useful: that's it.

But if it comes to that, No problem. Just consider my request please. Regards. (F5pillar 21:01, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I will leave this to another editor to review the request. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 12:11, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, once again. (F5pillar 16:42, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

MOS:TOPRESENT

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
  • Task: Prevent edits by a shifting IP to remove "present" from "partner" lines in infoboxes. Example of edit that should be stopped: diff. This should only be needed for a couple of weeks and can be disabled after that.
  • Reason: While some may like to remove "present", it contradicts the strong advice at MOS:TOPRESENT ("Do not use incomplete-looking constructions such as 1982–") and is causing disruption reported at ANI (permalink). I have tried engaging the person behind the IP (see ANI) but no response. Johnuniq (talk) 23:54, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
    @Johnuniq: Logging at 1042 (hist · log). I don't feel totally comfortable with the pattern, so it's best to wait a day or say and make sure it's not also catching something unrelated. In the meantime, you can create a custom warning at Mediawiki:Abusefilter-warning-topresent. Example warnings are here. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 00:26, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
    Thanks. I'll probably have to just block the IPs as they appear. It's very irritating that they do not get a notification of a message on their talk! Johnuniq (talk) 01:06, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Self Advertisement

Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
@CAPTAIN MEDUSA: Logging at 1043 (hist · log). Too many uses of "follow me" to match on just that, but should be possible to narrow down. Best to see which sites people actually spam, and add those to the regex. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 00:44, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Suffusion of Yellow, how about making it "(?:follow|like) (?:me|us) on\b", I think that would narrow it down better. creffett (talk) 12:31, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Suffusion of Yellow, also add Subscribe to.[19]. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 05:59, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Add Nepali expletives to 965

Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Galobtter, your thoughts on this? ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 13:10, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
IIRC gadha had too many FP; do you have examples of people using those expletives for vandalism? Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:27, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Galobtter, I don't have a diff for these expletives. But I have seen Muji, and Randi quite often. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 06:01, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

International broadcast list with flags

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A typical action of this person is like this example, in which a new header is created – International Broadcast – carrying a list of country flagicons and channel names.

Redirects submitted to AFC as an article

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
  • Task: Detects if a user is adding an AFC template to a redirect, disallows it an directs it to the correct venue (WP:AFC/R).
  • Reason: I believe that a spinout from filter 964 is needed. Filter 964 is also catching redirects submitted as drafts, so the instruction about an unsourced AFC submission is not accurate. Therefore, there should be a new filter for catching this kind of mistake. Eumat114 formerly The Lord of Math (Message) 12:35, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Convenience link to filter existing filter: 964 (hist · log). Drafted a message at Special:Diff/950900161. Majavah (t/c) 12:50, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Help in SqWiki

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello!

I'm an admin at SqWiki and I'd like some help to set up 2 specific new filters in our project according to our needs (and maybe optimize 1-2 of the existing ones we already have). 1 filter is regarding the change of userpages and another is related to creating very short pages. Is there someone free who can help me with the syntax creation? To not overcrowd the discussion here (since from past experiences I've seen it can grow rather lengthy) I'm saving the details for a user talk page. Either mine or someone's else, if a volunteer presents itself. Thank you in advance! :) - Klein Muçi (talk) 14:00, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Western film vandal

Latest comment: 4 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
I should mention that the vandal hops IPs; since my request they have moved to 2600:100B:B102:85D:2D20:682E:92DA:3883 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Certes (talk) 13:07, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
New log entries for a known IP of this vandal suggest that the filter is working well. Thanks! Certes (talk) 15:26, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

@Crow: Further request: decade categories are now being replaced by year categories, as in this edit. If "Sock Filter" (which I can't see) uses a category pattern like 19\d0s Western (genre) films, please also add 19\d\d Western (genre) films. Thanks, Certes (talk) 11:54, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
Being tracked in filter 1027. --qedk (t 愛 c) 16:37, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

nowiki in COI declaration

Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I routinely see users who have nowikis in their COI declarations on their userpage, so it renders like {{UserboxCOI|article}} (instead of actually rendering the template). I assume that they're copying the source code from "how to declare a COI" rather than copying the rendered template example. It's not a huge issue, but how would you all feel about creating a filter to warn people that they're making a mistake, with a custom warning to the effect of "you shouldn't use the nowiki tags, here's what your template should look like"? I think that if we match <nowiki>{{UserboxCOI</nowiki> (yes, matching the nowiki tags), that would catch a lot of these cases. creffett (talk) 15:48, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

This is happening because of VisualEditor. I don't think there should be a warning for this since it could possibly discourage someone from declaring, the meaning of their declaration is clear in any case. Maybe some buttons with preloaded templates could be added to the WP:COI page, then there wouldn't be any VisualEditor pasting problems. – Thjarkur (talk) 18:12, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Fair comments from Þjarkur. I did create a simple draft version of how such a filter would look like at User:MrClog/JSsandbox.js, though I don't mind whether we choose to implement the filter. --MrClog (talk) 14:43, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
All right, I'm not dead-set on this being a filter, just wanted to suggest it and see how other people felt. If we don't think it's necessary, no problems here. creffett (talk) 14:52, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Latest comment: 4 years ago10 comments6 people in discussion

This vandal has for nine consecutive days added the same defamatory material to Today's featured articles. He strikes at the turn of midnight and edit wars to keep the material in. See 222324252627. People are against preemptive protecting of TFA, but getting a protection when he inevitably strikes takes 40 minutes and these are high traffic articles.

Could we possibly get a temporary filter on the words "Connie Glynn", "mintfaery", "mint coven"?

– Thjarkur (talk) 17:53, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Þjarkur, I think a filter is a pretty good idea but I'm worried the vandal will change the message to get around the filter. How long do you think protection should last after the first addition of the text is observed? I'm usually online around that time, and can get someone else to pick it up via IRC or something if I'm not around. Enterprisey (talk!) 19:35, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
He always starts at right after 00:00 and is occasionally active until 07:00 UTC (using various VPNs). You're right that he'll probably change the message. – Thjarkur (talk) 20:17, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
All right, so he took it as a challange and bypassed the filter. Thanks for the help, the filter can probably be turned off now, preemptive protection is probably going to be the only deterrent. – Thjarkur (talk) 00:17, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
And now he's decided to move on to non-FA...see Special:Contributions/220.240.101.203. Their first edit summary was revdel'd (for containing more of the BLP-violating content), but part of it said something to the effect of "because the FA is protected, I'll post this here instead" creffett (talk) 19:50, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Still going

See, for example, [21] (was on MP) and today's history of Florian Schneider (currently on MP). Editor is IP shifting all over the place, presumably using proxies, and hitting non-semi-protected articles that are on the Main Page. Since they're linking her article, stopping IP addresses simply adding "Connie_Glynn" anywhere in articlespace except her actual article would be useful? Black Kite (talk) 00:48, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I think something needs to be done about this. Sadly I don't know exactly what (and if I did I'd not want to spill the beans). I'm suspicious about how the editor uses so many undetected proxies. Could they be subscribing to, or even perpetrating, a botnet? Certes (talk) 09:20, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
There are many open proxies that are not blocked. We block them only once they start editing, don't think this is a Botnet. The one editing Trevor Cherry is running OpenVPN on port 1602 and 1534 (still active). Their latest one (190.203.163.12) seems to have already died by now, but was a SOCKS proxy on port 8080. We could consider having a bot automatically check all IP editors of TFA and block proxies (and maybe even automatically revert them?) (RonaldB may be able to assist us in this), but otherwise there isn't much we can do here. --MrClog (talk) 09:46, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Courtesy ping to Black Kite and Certes. --MrClog (talk) 09:46, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Mirror site filter

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
  • Task: You can refer to the Chinese wikipeidia[23]. The filter is used to block all edits include "wikimirror.org" reminds us to replace it manually.
  • Reason:I am from China, sometimes I must edit via mirror site. Because of this site's technical reasons, any "wikipedia.org" will be changed to "wikimirror.org" like this[24]. If someone who uses this mirror site forgets to change it, links will be destroyed. RuiyuShen 03:11, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
  • In the link you linked, it looks like the wikimirror edit does get saved, just the link is wrong? I'll set up a logging-only filter soon as my test filter is free, to see how often this is a problem. EF runs against every edit on enwiki so it needs to be a problem that warrants the cpu time and inherent delay. CrowCaw 20:07, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, and the site has changed to wikipedia.wikimirror.org. The website'owner set up only people from China mainland can enter.--RuiyuShen 22:01, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Preventing Users from make articles of the same name of their username

Latest comment: 4 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Moving discussion to Noticeboard. Signed,The4lines |||| (You Asked?) (What I have Done.) 19:32, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

IP highway route damage

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Disallowing users that are not AFC user (or sysops) from removing the Draft prefix

Latest comment: 4 years ago12 comments3 people in discussion
  • Task Makes removing the Draft prefix harder.
  • Reason: It’s stop new users/spammers from removing the Draft prefix harder. It will help as new users/spammers can’t remove the draft tag and hope their promo/spam article is unnoticed and it gets in the wiki. If there is already feel free to disregard this request. Signed,The4lines |||| (You Asked?) (What I have Done.) 23:11, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes Crow Signed,The4lines |||| (You Asked?) (What I have Done.) 14:29, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Crow Yes, I know but spammers could get AutoConfirmed easily and then do What I said in the beginning. Signed,The4lines |||| (You Asked?) (What I have Done.) 17:35, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
  • We can't unilaterally change the move policy here (which a filter here would be doing). Any spammer who slips through the normal AFC process will usually be caught by the Page Curation process, and won't be indexed by search engines until then. CrowCaw 17:51, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Crow How about if it was only Tag. Would that work? Signed,The4lines |||| (You Asked?) (What I have Done.) 17:56, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Given that any AC account can create articles directly in mainspace, I don't see that such edit filters are needed or desired. Tagged maybe, but AFC isn't a usergroup. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:00, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

  • Remember that every live filter runs against every edit made anywhere on enwiki, so while there's countless things that would be nice to have, we need to make sure that new filters are fixing a problem that can't be fixed any other way. There's already a Page Move Log which could be patrolled by anyone as easily as patrolling the EF tag log. I don't think this warrants a filter unless/until there's a policy to do this. CrowCaw 18:12, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Not trying to squelch your enthusiasm, but this is one of the more complicated areas on-wiki, and as you've seen, has nuances that aren't immediately apparent. CrowCaw 18:32, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
  • Task: This filter would stop users from posting links on any page to their own personal social media accounts and using Wikipedia as a place to attract subscribers and followers on sites such as YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, etc.
  • Reason: I have personally seen numerous users joining Wikipedia for the sole purpose of using Wikipedia as a site to attract subscribers and followers to their social media accounts and posting links on pages, either in the information on the page or as a reference, to these accounts. Some of these users start spamming these links on random pages to try and get as many people as possible to go follow or subscribe to them. -- ProClasher97 (talk) 06:20, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
  • A problem with this is that we do allow social media accounts in certain cases, such as where the subject is notable for their social media presence, or otherwise has no official web site to link to. The filter can't make that determination as to whether such an addition is appropriate or not. CrowCaw 13:37, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Audio File Add

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
  • Task: Create an alert that when an audio file is added to any page it gets logged and/or placed on a page where project participants can review them to make sure they follow the criteria laid out in the project and unlink the file if needed. Right now it appears that 1530 articles have an audio file associated with it.
  • Reason: Recommended by ToBeFree; also will help cut down on bad audio files being uploaded and possibly contain spam, not containing the article, etc. Galendalia Talk to me CVU Graduate 08:04, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I'd support a tagging filter for the addition of audio files to the article namespace. Audio files require a longer time investment for proper reviewing than images, are a relatively rare addition and can be harmful to the reputation of the encyclopedia if they contain hidden vandalism or copyright violations. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:53, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Disallow empty edit requests

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  Moved to WP:EFN
 – ~ ToBeFree (talk) 04:03, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Stop articles from being moved from mainspace to other namespaces

Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

This should have been stopped by a filter. A new user moved eight articles out of mainspace to drafts, some of these articles were made in 2005 and had 1,000+ views/month. All the leftover redirects were deleted as WP:R2, no questions asked.

The move of Xutos & Pontapés to User talk:Xutos & Pontapés is so faulty that I'm surprised no filter stops it.

Obviously incorrect moves of mainspace articles and good-faith but improper draftifications of old articles are happening about every other day last time I checked, with newer users thinking that imperfect articles need to be draftified, and thus accidentally leading articles to being deleted. See this village pump thread where an incident of this was discussed.

Since admins don't check the history of pages before deleting the leftover redirects as WP:R2, I think we should put a filter in place from stopping this from occurring in the first place.

The filter I'm proposing is:

  • Non-extendedconfirmed users should be blocked from moving articles older than 2 months out of mainspace, they should be pointed to WP:RM/TR.
  • Extendedconfirmed non-admins & non-pagemovers should be warned when moving articles older than 2 months out of mainspace.
  • Moves from subject namespaces to talk namespaces should get a warning.

And since we're creating cross-namespace move filters:

  • A user should not be able to move their user talk page outside of their userspace. This usually happens when a user creates an article on their userpage and then moves that userpage to mainspace – a filter should block their talkpage from going to mainspace with them.

– Thjarkur (talk) 22:20, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Such a filter would enforce a policy that doesn't exist; right now the specific policy permits such moves to Draft space, with users doing so problematically being handled on a per-user basis. I'd bring this up at WP:VPP and see what consensus emerges. CrowCaw 22:26, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
    The policy mentions that only recently created article may be moved to drafts without an AfD discussion: The page [must be] a recent creation by an inexperienced editor. Old pages [...] deserve an AfD discussion. But yes, if the consensus on this isn't clear I'll bring it up at the village pump. – Thjarkur (talk) 22:39, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Moves from mainspace to anything but draft or user (i.e. moving to something like User/x/sandbox ) should be disallowed for anyone but admins or pagemovers since there's very likely little valid reasons to do so. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:02, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Change filter 364 (Changing the name in a BLP infobox) from log to disallow

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Looking at the edit filter log for 364, every single time this filter was triggered it was vandalism. Even in my last 250 reverts, this issue happens again and again and again, and the majority of the time it's a change to something offensive. I think this filter should be changed to disallow the change. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 16:05, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

I went through a sample of the last 50 hits. I do see a handful of what I'd call good-faith edits (not necessarily correct, but good faith):
  • Special:AbuseLog/27002089 - changing the transliteration, not a great action but not vandalism.
  • Special:AbuseLog/27002727 - while this was a bad change, this is a definite false positive - as far as I can tell it's because someone added a birth_name entry (redundant, but not wrong), we'd need to modify the filter so that it doesn't flag on someone adding a previously nonexistent field
  • Special:AbuseLog/27003362 - again, not a good edit, but I'd say that accidentally adding whitespace to the end of the line shouldn't flag (I think there's a norm function we can use to get around this?)
  • Special:AbuseLog/27002861 - as above, whitespace changes.
Summary: I like the idea, but I think that if we're going to set it to disallow, we need to tighten the filter up a bunch. Of course, we'll also want a custom disallow message saying "we prevent new and unregistered users from changing the names of living people to prevent vandalism, if there's an actual issue please make an edit request" creffett (talk) 23:43, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Unsourced IP edits to weather box templates

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
  • Task: Flag unsourced edits by IP users to the content of {{weather box}} templates.
  • Reason: I have no idea why these templates of all things are the target of so much drive-by subtle vandalism (maybe it's because of all the colors? idk), but I see it all the time on the many, many pages of cities and towns that I keep an eye on. A tag for it would make these edits much easier to track. Sometimes the edits are correct (for example, if a town records a new record high temperature, then in some cases the source will auto-update, so when the article is edited to reflect that, no change to the source is needed) but very often they are not. CJK09 (talk) 22:18, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Re-upping this. [contributions from this IP range] (which I also reported to ANI) are a few of many, many examples of this behavior.

The above link is giving me a "bad title" error. Shouldn't the link and label be formatted without the pipe: The contributions from this IP range? --DB1729 (talk) 10:27, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Re-upping again. This is an ongoing problem across many articles. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 22:08, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

New user removing infobox

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Happens a lot. Couple of examples: Special:Diff/962944955, Special:Diff/962943241. These only flagged "references removed", since the infobox happened to contain refs. Though many don't.

Propose the following filter: 

!("confirmed" in user_groups) &
page_namespace == 0 & (
  condition := "(?i){{\s*Infobox";
  rcount(condition, added_lines) < rcount(condition, removed_lines)
)

(alternative to confirmed condition: curious if using edit count < 50 picks up a substantial amount more?)

ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:26, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Filter 364 (editing name on BLP) doesn't catch fullname change

Latest comment: 4 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

364 didn't catch Special:Diff/962670913.

User: 2001:8a0:ddd0:8c00:f16b:730:abaa:97eb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

"fullname" is not valid on Template:Infobox person, but it is on Template:Infobox football biography (which was used here).

Propose editing filter to replace (nick|birth_?) -> (nick|full|birth_?)

Not sure how many more instances this will catch, and haven't checked if other infoboxes also support fullname, but I don't imagine it would add any false positives. (pinging creffett) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:09, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

ProcrastinatingReader, who is this creffett you speak of?   Done GeneralNotability (talk) 20:14, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
GeneralNotability, I noticed earlier today and still managed to forget; this is going to take some getting used to... ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:15, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
GeneralNotability, can we also add 'other_' to this? See Special:Diff/962944955 ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:14, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
ProcrastinatingReader, done. GeneralNotability (talk) 15:58, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Add word to filter 189

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Add the word 'retard' & 'retarded' to 189

re: Special:Diff/962530432

User: 64.53.240.222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Propose adding to line1: 

|\bretard(ed)?\b

(ping GeneralNotability) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:38, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

ProcrastinatingReader, done. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:59, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Spambots - educational student generators

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Adding a placeholder here for what appears to be some sort of cross-site/cross-wiki spambot text I ran across on User:ChristopherFko (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (ChristopherFko (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)).

Userpage text seems to include:

doing my final year engineering in Educational Policy Studies

... and possibly variants on it, plus some randomization you can find in google.

I don't have time to deal with it/modify filters at this second, but I'll try to dig a little deeper to see if there are any other patterns and/or what its incidence is (and/or just add it to an existing filter myself, if applicable).

Cheers =) --slakr\ talk / 07:53, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Slakr, this is an ntsamr-pattern spambot. See WP:NTSAMR. 935 (hist · log) appears to have flagged it correctly. GeneralNotability (talk) 12:43, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

BLP date change

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion
  • Task: Prevent unsourced changes/additions of dates of birth (i.e. if there is no <ref>some source</ref> in the wikitext in the infobox parameter for this) in infoboxes
  • Reason: This is a frequent source of vandalism; eg. this and the edits are already tagged as such so this shouldn't be too difficult to implement. WP:DOYCITE is rather clear on this, too. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:46, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
No response to this? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:34, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Again re-upping this since no answer... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:07, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Tracking the creation of users with "wack" in their usernames

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Talk pages with "Infobox football biography"

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Hi. I've recently come across a number of talk pages with infoboxes that were created but lack a subject page (i.e. a misplaced draft, but just an infobox). Its hard to check in the testing interface, since the pages are deleted, but can a log-only filter be created to try and track these? Draft below 

!("autoconfirmed" in user_rights) & /* autoconfirmed users can create the page itself */
page_namespace === 1 & /* talk namespace */
page_id === 0 & /* new page */
("infobox football biography" in lcase( added_lines ) ) /* lowercase since the first letter is case insensitive */

Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 06:14, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Orphaned talkpage deletion bot is inactive but one of these bots may be of use. Certes (talk) 11:58, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Block

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

2401:4900:40A1:F1BF:DE79:DE1F:CD5E:106C||2401:4900:40A1:F1BF:DE79:DE1F:CD5E:106C two Dalip Singh Rana with the reason "removing content from pages"? --List of people from Chamar caste 2405:205:1104:FACD:0:0:1B20:48AD (talk) 02:45, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Filter 869

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Per the results of Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RfC:_Zero_Hedge can zerohedge.com be added to filter 869 (depreciated sources)? Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:24, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

  Added to filter 869 (hist · log). Please see Special:AbuseFilter/history/869/diff/prev/23937. ​— Newslinger talk 16:56, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

LTA category

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Please prevent all creations of pages beginning with "Category:Moowoo", which are being created by an LTA. See [25], [26], [27], all the way up to 18 so far, I believe. Home Lander (talk) 20:36, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Tag edits made by blocked users to their user talk pages

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

When a user is blocked, we should have a filter that tags edits to their talk page. For an example of why this is useful, in Special:Diff/970577069, the user asked to be unblocked but didn't wrap the request in an unblock template, so it didn't end up in the unblock request category. Had I not been watching recent changes just as it scrolled by, there's a good chance that it never would have been noticed. Having a tag would make it much easier to find these sorts of things, as well as to find users who abuse their talk page while blocked and need to have talk page access revoked. Jackmcbarn (talk) 04:17, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Kenyan phone scam

Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
  • Task: block all number strings including 0704143990 or 0792194950 - ignoring all spaces and multiple spaces wherever these are inserted
    Other than Harvard Business School all the articles that have been attacked which I have tracked have been Kenyan - Kenyan Schools, Kenyan Universities, Kenyan Hospitals, Kenyan supermarkets, Kenyan districts etc.
  • Reason: Kenyan phone scam - similar to the old Nigerian phone scam - adding the same mobile phone number to multiple articles - also being scammed on twitter, facebook and other sites
    Fuller explanation; including lists of some of the articles attacked, and the usernames and IPs being used; at User:Arjayay/Kenyan phone scam
    Currently, there are only two numbers being scammed, but to make searching for them (or, presumably, blocking them) more difficult, they are being broken up by adding spaces, and/or double spaces, in different positions in the number strings. - Arjayay (talk) 08:37, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

 Y Done at 793 (for the record only, as the filter is hidden) –Darkwind (talk) 09:35, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Have now reformatted their number as ⁰7⁰4 14³ 99⁰ in order to avoid the filter - Arjayay (talk) 14:26, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Filter 869

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Per the results of Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_305#RfC:_Baidu_Baike can baike.baidu.com and b.baidu.com be added to filter 869 (depreciated sources)? Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:06, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

  Done diff thanks Newslinger. Hemiauchenia (talk) 08:39, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Warn if adding a WikiProject tag that doesn't exist

Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
  • Task: Prevent editors from adding a WikiProject template when that WikiProject template doesn't exist. Should only really be needed on Talk: and Draft talk: spaces. The rule would be to check if , when adding \{\{(WikiProject|WP) (.*)\}\} that Template:$1 $2 exists (case insensitive). Or something like it.
  • Reason: To cut down on mistaggings? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:16, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
    Uhhh, I'm not sure if AF supports conditions like "is page X a thing". – Majavah talk · edits 17:26, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Not sure either, but I figured it's worth asking. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:57, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
My understanding is that the AF can only look at the content of the p-age beign ewdited, and it is expensive to look at more than the contyent of the diff of the edit. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 20:54, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Donald Drumpf filter

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
This already exists as 901 (hist · log), but it only affects users that are not (auto)confirmed. – Majavah talk · edits 13:41, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Majavah, ah, thanks. Would it be considered to extend it, or would that be considered too disruptive? YorkshireLad  ✿  (talk) 13:56, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Connie Glynn vandal

Latest comment: 4 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
  • Task: What is the filter supposed to do? To what pages and editors does it apply?
Main page articles.
See also VPP for more context. © Tbhotch™ (en-3). 01:50, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
@Tbhotch: WP:BEANS, but check your email. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 01:56, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
Filter is 1050 (hist · log), looks like there's work going on there for this new version. For people who come along and wonder why this is suspected to be the Connie Glynn vandal rather than some other random editor vandalizing TFA, see the edit summary at Special:Permalink/974434443 and following - they're either that vandal or a copycat. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:58, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
@Suffusion of Yellow: Roger that. © Tbhotch™ (en-3). 01:59, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Number change

Latest comment: 4 years ago36 comments2 people in discussion
  • Task: Prevent replacement of the number in the page title by a different number in number articles (title format "^\d{1,3}$" or "^[\d,]+ \(number\)$") by IP editors (and maybe non-confirmed).
  • Reason: I revert edits such as this and this most days, as do other editors. The filter would avoid the page being incorrect until noticed, and save us work. Certes (talk) 10:38, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Testing a filter for FPs. Feel free to send me a diff or 2 over the next few days and I'll see if the filter caught it, and if it caught things it shouldn't have. CrowCaw 22:49, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
@Crow: Today's test cases are brought to you by the numbers 253 and 68. Certes (talk) 12:08, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Thanks, tweaked filter. This one should be fairly good, though it will catch an IP correcting these vandalisms, where that ever happens. How many digits do these articles go to? CrowCaw 15:32, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
My original request was for up to 1000 but, with year articles attracting edits like this, we should probably take the digit-only titles up to 2099. For "nnn (number)" titles we can probably take them all; there aren't many beyond 1000. Certes (talk) 16:11, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
@Crow: Are you checking just for changes from the number in the title? Your comment about corrections suggests that the filter might prevent all number changes, which could do more harm than good. We would want to keep good IP edits such as this which change numbers in other ways. Certes (talk) 16:17, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Here is a kind IP fixing this very problem. Would it be sensible to trap replacing the eponymous number by anything, to catch edits such as this too? Certes (talk) 18:35, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
  • It won't stop all number changes. I'm matching on specific page titles, and deletion of up to a 4-digit number in the lede where the number is defined (using the specific format) by unconfirmed users. Filter 861 for those with access. The problem is finding enough conditions to catch the vandalism while not catching helpful edits, including urls. CrowCaw 23:24, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the good work. I can see that the limited features available in edit filters make this task harder than it might look. This edge case may be useful for testing: the number plus other stuff is replaced by a different number plus other text, which is rarer and may be beyond my original request. Certes (talk) 10:52, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
By the way, I've also seen changes like this. They number dozens rather than hundreds and nothing for about a month, so certainly not worth a special filter, but if this filter happens to catch them then so much the better. The change is quite specific about adding a letter in upper and lower case before and after, usually Bb or Zz, e.g. 123→Bb123Bb or 456→Zz456Zz. Certes (talk) 15:09, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
  • The filter I'm testing should catch those as well. Though I've not seen any hits since the 15th. Have you seen any of these since then you can link me to? CrowCaw 14:07, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
@Crow: The only edit I've seen since 15 June which possibly qualifies is 963. It would also be nice to have caught 1000 (number), but the changed number is a subtopic so it falls outside the spec. The filter seems to be working well. Have you caught many edits? Certes (talk) 15:03, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
1865 :-( Certes (talk) 11:54, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Filter tweaked again, catches all of the above now. The filter is set to log-only to make sure no false positives, so keep on sending me examples. You can use my talk page if you'd like so as not to clog this page. So far no FP though which is good. CrowCaw 14:03, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
456, 1801, 17, 167. I've spotted very few cases recently. Maybe the vandals are getting out more. Certes (talk) 22:00, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
  • 167 Might be hard to catch. The filter did catch the other ones. There have been a few FPs that it will be hard to tune out due to a quirk in how the filter looks at edits. If the fp rate stays low enough I'll try going Disallow for a bit and see what happens. CrowCaw 14:42, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks again, Crow. The rate of this particular vandalism has been low recently, which of course is good for Wikipedia, but I hope I've not been wasting your time. Certes (talk) 14:46, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
New examples: 1988, 2000, 81. Certes (talk) 11:28, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, Crow! A few fresh examples: 44, 1183 and possibly 1189. Is reporting them still useful? Certes (talk) 14:58, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I've set the filter 1074 to disallow. So let me know if you see any after this point, as they will have not been caught. Thanks! CrowCaw 15:13, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
One week on, I've seen no cases slipping through. (Vandals changed a few other numbers, and were correctly allowed.) The filter is doing its job, assuming that there was something to catch, and I hope it hasn't produced false positives. Certes (talk) 16:37, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
One Two may have slipped through, to perennial target 42 twice Certes (talk) 11:10, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Does 1,000,000 and again count? The title has commas; the removed number didn't. Certes (talk) 19:27, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, Crow. Are you catching much? There's certainly been a drop in cases I see getting through, and it's good to know that cases like 1,000,000 but with fewer digits are being caught. Certes (talk) 13:00, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
@Crow: I'd taken my eye off this ball but spotted a few sneaking through recently: 1499, 1253, 87, 848, 2017. Certes (talk) 20:48, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Crow. To judge by what's getting through, the filter seems to be catching 95%+ of targets, which is more than good enough. Certes (talk) 16:33, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
@Crow: Is this filter active? I'm still seeing a few simple-looking cases like this one slip through. Certes (talk) 10:54, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
  • That one is actually one of the harder cases due to the parenthetical. I can try adding a wildcard in there but that will slow it down a bit. CrowCaw 13:22, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll leave it to your judgement whether to bother, as I'm not sure how many edits it would slow down. Certes (talk) 13:40, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Edit_filter/Requested/Archive_15&oldid=1138445217"