Jump to content

Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested/Archive 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13→Archive 15

No More Megatron Griffin

  • Task: The filter is supposed to stop/disallow the addition of the word "Megatron". It would apply to Meg Griffin and would prevent IPs and non-autoconfirmed accounts from adding or having anything to do with the word Megatron.
  • Reason: This filter is needed because for the past several months, and is predictable vandalism. I don't know if anyone else has asked for this filter to be made, I know I haven't. Thanks, z'L3X1 (distænt write) 01:54, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Deferred: @L3X1: Filters are applied to all edits. Therefore, problematic changes that apply to a single page are likely not suitable for an edit filter. A more appropriate venue for this request is WP:RFPP. Nihlus 08:07, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Blank request

  • Task: Talk pages. Warn and possibly tag edits by people who submit blank edit requests.
  • Reason: Sometimes(not sure of the exact amount) edit requests by users contain nothing about what they want done- just the edit request template and their user signature. It might be useful to remind them to add a reason, in case of an accidental blank submission. Sakura Cartelet Talk 00:46, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
    @Sakura Cartelet: I really don't see a point to creating a filter for this. The process for submitting an edit request is slightly convoluted by itself, so it would be best to improve the template, like I have attempted, rather than convolute the process further. Nihlus 16:10, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Well I thought it might be useful, but if you people think it won't then I guess this request can be closed then? Sakura Cartelet Talk 20:34, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Prevent new users from editing other's talk page headers

  • Task: Trigger a log entry and prevent editing with a warning, similar to for 803
  • Reason: Typical example: [1]
  • Details:

It is not rare for vandalism to be made at the top, or near the top of talk pages. Since talk pages are usually used for communication, it would be impractical to have a filter as strict as 803, but a variant preventing editing before the first blank line (unless the talk page is empty) may be useful. Archiving bots ignore talk page header templates too (other than their own configuration options). It would make sense for other users not to be able to edit those templates and configurations too... Also imagine a case of a semi-active editor who only realizes after unexpected bot actions as a result of misconfiguration. It seems that some non-newbies do not manage to remove vandalism or misplaced comments when they occur before or within their talk page headers (mobile or visual editor restrictions perhaps?), see [2] which was there since 28 April. Obviously, archive bots would also never archive those. I even thought of preventing any edit to user talk pages by non-autoconfirmed users when not at the bottom, but this would prevent answering to existing threads and may not be welcoming to new users who often misplace comments. —PaleoNeonate - 18:29, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply. I can say from experience that a lot of new users add their comments to the top of the talk page, simply because they don't know any better. For this reason I would recommend against getting a filter involved. Talk pages are sensitive -- folks need to be able to communicate without barriers. Additionally, it wouldn't be trivial (or cheap) to implement regex that correctly checks that the talk page header templates were modified. In rare cases this might actually be constructive. Finally, user talk edits are very frequent so the expense of the filter may outweigh the benefits. Overall I will have to suggest that this be no Declined unless we can show there is a frequent and easily detectable problem — MusikAnimal talk 16:35, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

We need another replacement filter

ITT; filters not being terminated

Filter 812 recently let no less than five pages have 2.7 million bytes of nonsense added to them. We need a new filter, because 812 is going to have to be terminated. Could we hurry up before Hatebread figures out he can do this and not get filtered out? (Especially since he was recently blocked globally forever due to sockpuppeting!)TomBarker23 (talk) 10:57, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

@TomBarker23: The issue isn't with any specific filter. It's in general with the AbuseFilter system. If you'd take a look at the Phabricator ticket MA supplied, it mentions that "the variables AbuseFilter supplies are incorrect, or it's reading the data in the wrong way, something related to the variables." This means that edit_delta had a mishandled check regarding the bytes added. Dat GuyTalkContribs 12:47, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
no Declined Yes, it appears it is a bug. What's semi-comforting is the edits you speak of are the same that were originally reported, leading that Phab task to be created. So maybe, just maybe, that bug has subsided, but I've grown to be skeptical. I know the Anti-Harassment Tools Team is working on various AbuseFilter bugs and features, so I'm hopeful things will be more stable soon — MusikAnimal talk 16:27, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Unconfirmed New users moving from draft > article

WP:ACTRIAL has curtailed the efforts of undisclosed paid editors using throwaway accounts to create new articles, but some have already worked out that it is possible to start in draft space and then move it without being autoconfirmed e.g. these all in the last week: [3] [4] [5]. It'd be helpful if we could log all the moves by new users from draft > article space to get an idea of how commonly this is being used. SmartSE (talk) 19:07, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

@Smartse: According to Wikipedia:User access levels, you have to be autoconfirmed to move pages anywhere. These three accounts each have more than 10 edits. -- John of Reading (talk) 19:44, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
@John of Reading: Hmm. Thanks for pointing that out! I've changed the title accordingly. Rather than unconfirmed then, could we just log it for any accounts < 50 edits? SmartSE (talk) 19:48, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
I'd support making this like filter 867 and just have it as non-extended confirmed. That way we'll catch any sleeper accounts that had been left to do minor edits over time. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:51, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Filter 867 is for non-extended confirmed. This is an easy filter to create, and one I would support. I'm just surprised this wasn't brought up in the WP:ACTRIAL discussions. Nihlus 20:15, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Other filters were brought up, which I won't discuss here for BEANS reasons, but it was decided to wait to see if there was a preferred method for gaming ACTRIAL. Filter 867 deals with one of the methods of gaming it, but moves from draft space outside of the AfC process also seem to be a method. Filter 630 tracks moves by new users out of userspace? It might be worth simply updating that one to be moves from non-extended confirmed users out of draft or userspace. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:19, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
There's 5. 850 is also similar. Nihlus 20:26, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
630 looks to me like it'd be the easiest one to adapt. SmartSE (talk) 12:46, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
5 and 850 are targeted toward other things, namely users attempting to do things that look like the right way to accomplish a task but are not. Whichever one that adds the "new user moving a page out of the userspace" tag is probably the best thing to adapt. – Train2104 (t • c) 23:35, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

It should honestly be its own filter, which is why I said the others were similar. It's an easy filter to write, it's just a matter of approval and getting it done. Nihlus 23:44, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Craig David vandal

Deferred @Mac Dreamstate: This is not at the level of needing an edit filter. Please seek out and try alternative methods (such as WP:RFPP) before requesting a filter. Thanks. Nihlus 19:04, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Lame. It seemed simple enough, but maybe I was thinking too much along the lines of Internet forum filters.. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:07, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Template vandalism

I presume there are already edit filters aimed at this, but please see this edit(admins only I'm afraid) made today to {{"'}} which caused a highly visible notice to be displayed on around 500 highly trafficked pages causing confusion amongst readers: [6] [7]. It isn't the first time this vandal has struck, and it shouldn't be difficult to catch with the edit filter. SmartSE (talk) 16:59, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, Special:AbuseFilter/139 should have caught this, but didn't due to a known issue -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 17:01, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Ah ok then. I guess this can be ignored. SmartSE (talk) 17:12, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

A filter for the text 571886/6886

Self-published sources

I would like to propose a Warn filter for the following websites in main and talk namespace:

  • angelfire.com / angelfire.lycos.com
  • tripod.com / tripod.lycos.com

Both are frequently linked, and most of these are either proposed or actual references failing WP:SPS and WP:RS. As a kindness to editors, I'd like to see a warning and positive action before allowing these to be added or proposed as sources, rather than having to revert them. Guy (Help!) 21:21, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Editing a closed XFD

  • Task: Prevent new editors, and tag and warn not-new editors, if they try to (1) edit a closed AFD page, (2) edit a closed MFD page, or (3) modify text inside the close tags for a closed XFD of any other type. Make exceptions, of course, for adding the DRV template and unclosing the discussion.
  • Reason: Closed discussions are supposed to remain permanently unchanged, unless you're reopening or challenging them, and an old XFD is a good vandalism target ([8], closed in 2009, is why this is coming to my mind right now), partly because people don't often pay attention to them. Unless adding a new filter for this purpose is misuse of resources, we ought to have a way to catch these edits. Nyttend (talk) 14:25, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
@Nyttend: Late response, sorry, but how would protection for problematic cases not be sufficient to combat this? Is this something that is so widespread that it can't be dealt with on a case-by-case basis? Nihlus 09:04, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
As an aside, it might actually be worth discussion at WP:AN whether we should courtesy blank and protect closed AfDs for BLPs. Guy (Help!) 09:33, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm thinking there is a solution for this somewhere, but I'm not sure the edit filter is it. Nihlus 09:43, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
How in the world are we supposed to know that this 2009 discussion would get hit eight years later? The only way to prevent such vandalism with protection is mass-protecting XFDs. It also wouldn't work with closed discussions on still-open pages, e.g. an FFD. And protection would make it impossible simply to reopen a discussion or to take it to DRV. Nyttend (talk) 12:52, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Admin bot run to protect XFD closed more than 30 days? Guy (Help!) 11:41, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Predatory open access journals

Match: 10.(4172|4236|5897|11648) in DOI parameter of any citation template
Regex is probably (?i)doi[ ]*=[ ]*10[.](4172|4236|5897|11648)
@JzG: As someone who is unfamiliar with this, how are these journals predatory? Is there a discussion about these journals somewhere on the wiki? Also, can you provide some examples as to how frequent this is? Finally, would a search be sufficient in finding them and removing them? Thanks! Nihlus 09:11, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
I cranked up my regex-fu and built filter 891. So: I have now linked predatory open access, which may help (my bad). You can also see discussions at WP:RSN, e.g. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 233 § Predatory publishers, fake conferences and academics who find them a way to succeed. These journals are identified in the canonical reference on predatory journals, Beall's list. They are also not listed in the Directory of Open Access Journals. There are also numerous independent commentaries on them, and in the case of OMICS, also a long term abuse case, a global ban on all OMICS employees, and an ongoing case by the Federal Trade Commission. I can search for them, and I do that regularly, but every time I find new cites, which is why a filter is needed. Users are, in good faith, adding sources that I then have to go and remove because they are known to be unreliable. Guy (Help!) 09:27, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Nihlus that I'd like to see something more than the one bullet point at WP:SCHOLARSHIP before resorting to edit filters. – Train2104 (t • c) 12:46, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
This has been the subject of numerous discussions at RSN and elsewhere. most recently [9]. Guy (Help!) 11:40, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

There is no reason why we should not at least monitor this (as we start of like that anyway): Special:AbuseFilter/893. I am not opposed to 'friendly' warning afterwards. Heck, I am not even opposed to a harsher setting on XLinkBot for this. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:51, 6 December 2017 (UTC) Will delete .. thanks User:Nihlus, it was hidden in the text. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:10, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

@Beetstra: This was already created at Special:AbuseFilter/891. Nihlus 11:55, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Beetstra: There's Special:AbuseFilter/891 (see above) already, so I think Special:AbuseFilter/893 might be redundant if I understand right. Κσυπ Cyp   11:59, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Lamon Brewster

N Denied Thanks for the suggestion Mac Dreamstate, but this isn't really at a level where an abuse filter is appropriate (similar to what Nihlus said at this request). Edit filters are used for widespread or especially damaging edits -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 21:11, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

919929669787 spammer

  • Task: Prevent new accounts from registering with "919929669787" in their username
  • Reason: "919929669787" is almost always used by an LTA spammer, and as far as I know, an edit filter like this does not yet exist. Hastiness (talk) 16:30, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Defer to Global blacklist. The title backlist is used to blacklist usernames, not edit filters. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:09, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

"Password" in username

  • Task: Prevent users from creating accounts with "Password" in their username.
  • Reason: Most accounts with "Password" in their username have usernames like "Thepasswordforthisaccountis"foobar123"" or something like that. Normally, the specified password is the actual password for the account, thus making the account a compromised account. Hastiness (talk) 19:54, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Defer to Global blacklist. The title backlist is used to blacklist usernames, not edit filters. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:12, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Self-published books

Re-activating a request by Doug Weller from way back when:

  • Task: Tag articles where sources are added where the publisher is one of a number of well-known self-publishing companies such as AuthorHouse (at times called Author House), Trafford Publishing, iUniverse, Xulon Lulu.com and Xlibris, sometimes cited as Xlibris/Random House.
  • Reason: These sources should generally (but not always) not be used per WP:SPS but many editors are unaware of this or that the source is self-published. Flagging such additions would aid editors who are watching the relevant articles.

Since this request was made, the problem has continued to grow. We have literally thousands of references to self-published books on lulu.com, a substantial proportion of whihc turn out to have been added by the author, and very few of which are actually reliable sources. I have removed several hundred, of which exactly two have subsequently been agreed to be RS. Guy (Help!) 11:50, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

  • @JzG:[10] Seems to be catching what's intended. There's a few vandalism reverts that make it look like a user is adding that text, but if the intent is merely to tag then this looks mostly ready for prime time. Last step is for someone who speaks Phabricator to request the tag per WP:EFTAGS. CrowCaw 21:13, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
@Crow: Splendid work, sir! I'd like to have a warning as well, if possible, to help good faith editors to avoid accidentally including unreliable sources. Guy (Help!) 21:58, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Strongest possible oppose: The companies in question are not publishers in the traditional sense, they are simply printers. As such they often reprint older works that no one would question for a second - the book is fine if it comes from Springer but should be tagged when reprinted by Lulu? What madness is that?
Sure, a lot of crap gets printed by these printers. But Sturgeon put it, 90% of everything is crap. This proposal suggests we should throw out the 10% because of the rest. And better yet, it proposes doing it with a bot process, so that 10% will never even be checked.
What's equally worrying is that the proposal is actually talking about SPS and COI, which are real concerns we should all have, but intends to fix that by complaining about the source. If you see COI, tag the COI. What possible service does another tag do when we already have one that actually tells you what the problem is? Maury Markowitz (talk) 03:33, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Hi Maury Markowitz, I share your concerns, but do note that the articles won't be tagged as in the "big ugly badge of shame article tag" but rather just the edit itself will be logged with an edit summary tag (just look at random edit summaries in Special:RecentChanges for the sorts of tags I mean) and in the edit filter log. Probably just a tag that says "Possible Self Published Source Added". Likewise not a single edit will be prevented by this, so we're most certainly not trying to throw out the proverbial good 10%. All that this will do is assist in finding the occasions where possibly unreliable sources have been added, so that an actual human (not a bot taking unilateral action) can review the addition and see if it was just a case of a publisher printing an obscure book, or whether it was indeed a vanity publish or other not-so-reliable source. So to your point, this will help identify additions that previously escaped detection so we can indeed "tag it if we see it". I hope this clears things up! CrowCaw 23:51, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Riiight, "review the addition"... like they don't do now? An SPS tag is reason enough for lots of editors to remove content and the wikilawyer if you try to re-add it. An edit summary will be different?
Look, I get it, you think this is a good idea. Fine, A-B test it. Turn it on for 10% the users and then we'll meet back here in a year and review. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:40, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
  • You are likely correct on the wikilawyering of the tag ("the tag says so!"), so perhaps those who wish to monitor this can simply keep a link to the filter's log? That would probably be more useful, as the Examine link it provides will better show the suspect additions. Since theoe sources don't guarantee a problem, this would further keep it subtle. I don't know, I'm just the implementer here, and protecting the 10% is primary... first do no harm, and all. @JzG: your thoughts? CrowCaw 16:21, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Seeing a fair few hits, mainly Xlibris and Lulu, and not getting challenges when removing them so far. Guy (Help!) 16:30, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, @Crow:. Guy (Help!) 23:25, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Deletions

I think there might be merit in tagging (using separate tags) the addition of AfD, PROD or CSD templates to an article. Often there are prior deletion attempts in history; it would be useful to automate the process of bringing these to the attention of anyone looking to add a template through twinkle or whatever ,and the obvious (to me) way of doing this is a tag. What do others think? Guy (Help!) 14:57, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Recent ANI disruption

Is there ANYTHING that can be done to stop the recent ANI disruption? It has been semi-protected and extended-protected numerous times over the past few days thanks to throwaway socks, and CU wouldn't help in this case. May need a filter. —MRD2014 Talk 20:27, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I support this, because the user who first got ANI protected in the first place has been causing absolute chaos. I think a filter ought to be necessary. TomBarker23 (talk) 14:51, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Looks like Zzuuzz has created Special:AbuseFilter/896. —MRD2014 Talk 02:36, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Copying and pasting with WP:VE adding hundreds of hidden non-breaking spaces

The edit filter would only need to look at edits made by VE. You can see an example of the hidden spaces being added here. They are turned to visible here via WikEd.[13] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:39, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Cat Creek Lions troll

  • Task: Stop Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Catcreekcitycouncil vandalism.
  • Reason: This has come up twice before; the first time, two years ago, it was dismissed as premature; the second time, last year, it was archived as being worked on. Has any progress been made? Because the socker/sockfarm has returned yet again, and by all indications this is one of the "they are never going to go away" cases, and even if Cat Creek, Montana is kept under permament ECP, they have demonstrated that they will add their trolling to other 'cat creek'-named pages, other Montana pages, and sometimes entirely unrelated pages; the only way this is going to be stopped is through (possibly aggressive) filtering.
Assuming there isn't something ready for immediate deployment, I would suggest somehow filtering:
  • changing of "mountain lion" to "lion/s". (as demonstrated on their most recent return (revdel'd per WP:DENY): [14]). If a filter can be set to a single page, this could be set to only the main target page, as it's potentially the "broadest" of the needed filtering settings.
  • addition of "lion/s"+"cat creek" to all pages.
  • addition of "lion/s"+"montana" to all pages.
Thanks. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:23, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
As I did in the first request, I'd support this filter. It's hard to believe this person is still active, but their perseveration seems strong. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:30, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
@The Bushranger and EvergreenFir: We already have filters 547 and 849 (both currently disabled). Those could probably be adjusted to stop the recent vandalism. —MRD2014 Talk 13:40, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
@MRD2014: I cannot view those, but enabling them would be appreciated. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:11, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
That should hopefully help. However, I'm not an EFM so I can't enable it. We'd have to ask an EFM. I'm not an admin either. —MRD2014 Talk 19:44, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Hm, the first of those might need (significant?) refinement - there hasn't been roaring in awhile - and was disabled for being too expensive (in server load, I imagine). The second one only logs usernames. Those would help, certainly, but honestly what is needed is a hard filter stopping the additions mentioned above, because it's blatantly obvious this is being done for the jollies and any attention, even "being one-click reverted", is enough reward for them to keep going. . - The Bushranger One ping only 00:27, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

WikiVandal

It would be great if a filter could trip whenever someone creates an ANI thread like [15] with the heading "User:ClueBot NG is malfunctioning". It's a trademark behavior of WikiVandal. Home Lander (talk) 18:34, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Meg Maheu

GeraldFord1980 troll

  • Task: Prevent all article edits containing the phrase "Joe Walz".
  • Reason: While the sockpuppet investigation a little less than a year ago (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/GeraldFord1980/Archive) caught a number of sockpuppet accounts associated with the user GeraldFord1980, this troll continues to edit from a dynamic set of IPs and to insert "Joe Walz" vandalism/gibberish on a wide range of articles. Examples from just the last few days include [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], etc - but essentially ever since the SPI the vandalism has been fairly consistent. Another editor recently raised concerns about the troll here and the suggestion was given to seek an edit filter since 99% of the vandalism contains "Joe Walz". Two things make this troll particularly difficult. First, the dynamic IPs (I've identified ~70 used so far) makes it impossible for a range block to work effectively and has resulted in a number of reports to WP:AIV, often without the reporting editor or responding admin realizing the long-term abuse context. Second, in many of the edits the troll will copy a reference from earlier in the article into the edit to give it the appearance of legitimacy. A cursory review that only looks for the existence of a citation would let such vandalism pass. Thanks. --FyzixFighter (talk) 01:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

34807778346

To clarify: it's obviously not worth wasting a whole filter on this trivial case, but if it can be added cheaply to an existing list of naughty words either permanently or temporarily then that might put the vandal off. Certes (talk) 18:01, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Looking for an appropriate one. Not sure what the significance of that number is, but it shows up in many WMF projects beyond here and simple... CrowCaw 19:18, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, Crow. It's the right length for a +34 807... Spanish premium rate phone service, but I won't be dialling to find out. Certes (talk) 19:51, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
@Crow: Could you also do something similar with the number 9650073658? It's being spammed by a sockpuppeteer (see SPI case). Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:55, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Ok, added to 260, too. Κσυπ Cyp   16:21, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Richard Madenfort

  • Task Automatically revert any instance of "Richard Madenfort"
  • Added to 260. Rick Marty may throw FPs as part of a list, so watching for that. The other strings don't appear in that order currently anywhere, so should be ok, though watching for FPs too. CrowCaw 16:49, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
"Richard Madenfort" does pop up from time to time, including on Lee Brice (album) just a couple weeks ago. Would it be possible to prevent it from being re-added? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:52, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
  • It will be blocked when attempted. I just meant that that name doesn't seem to appear legitimately, so blocking it should have low false-positives. Same with Reggie Bradley. All 3 are flagged to be disallowed. CrowCaw 17:01, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Filthy Jew; Heil Hitler

Many combining characters in edit summaries

  • Task: phab:T188865 support
  • Reason: Can cause rendered page to obscure other edits.

Hey @MusikAnimal: maybe--- and FYI to @Cyberpower678: take a look at phab:T188865 - think we can do this cheap enough? (Inspect ALL summaries, counting the number of characters in range, possibly in a sequence)? — xaosflux Talk 00:15, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I imagine a filter for this is doable, but have we observed any actual disruption beyond those test edits? — MusikAnimal talk 04:31, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
@MusikAnimal: mostly wanted to look for some options - maybe mock something up on testwiki if you have a min. — xaosflux Talk 04:50, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Something like rcount("[start-end]", summary) > 5 might work, where start and end is the range of the characters, and 5 is some arbitrary limit, or maybe summary irlike "[start-end]{5,}" (only counting when the characters are adjacent to one another). If we wanted to prevent it I would use CSS, since this seems chiefly to be a display issue, and not inherently wrong (though this "character stacking" could certainly be abused). — MusikAnimal talk 16:53, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

No javascrpt adverts

  • Would it be better to add the ad link to the blacklist? Or a related question for those more experienced: is there ever a valid reason for a user to add <script> outside of nowiki or code brackets? CrowCaw 14:46, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Task: Filter 220 is meant to warn users about incorrectly formatted links and external images. This is not what I am looking for. I would like to have a filter that matches all external links except those in valid reference tags. It should cause the edit to be tagged with the already-existent "bad external" tag or with a new, neutral "external" tag. No additional action should be taken, no warning should be shown!
  • Reason: This filter is needed for easy manual review of all external links added by new users to the wiki.
  • Links without "https?://" should ideally be matched, too. Inexperienced editors sometimes try to advertise their website or facebook page by writing something like "visit us on fb.me/example".
  • Optimization: Check only the main (article) namespace. Check only edits by non-"confirmed" users. Finding an external link triggers the filter, no need to look for more links. "added_links" is slow according to the documentation, why? Can we use a quick "added_lines" regex, and why would that be faster? What exactly is going on behind the scenes when "added_links" is executed? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:01, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

"Is Best" vandalism

  • Task: Stops people putting "X" is best into articles
  • Reason: As a recent changes patroller, I find quite a few people putting things like (insert name of football team here) is (the) best [Username Needed] 13:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I'll set up a log-only for these on 861. I suspect this may generate false positives against good-faith additions. Even though "is the best" is often a pov phrase, its addition may not always be vandalism that should be met with the Big Big Banner Of Deny to a potentially well-meaning user. Use in valid quotes or titles of web links is another FP scenario. CrowCaw 14:49, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
  • "Is best" threw a ton of FPs so far, so stopped watching that. A large amount of "is best known for", but a smattering of other cases too. CrowCaw 23:37, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Signing Articles Filter

  • Task: When someone types in four of the '~' instead of five, this accidentally uses a signature instead of the timestamps. The filter is triggered when accidental edits like this happens. This applies to all users and only articles in the mainspace.
  • Reason: Identifies any accidental edits as quickly as possible rather than random signatures staying there for a set time. Many users have accidentally signed them over the years and mostly just one user (Jac16888) has removed them. Iggy (Swan) 22:34, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
I think that it is impossible to check for four tildes with a filter. As all signatures must link to the user's page or talk page, below is the filter:
article_namespace == 0 &
regex := "\[\[User(talk)?:" + user_name + "[\/\|\]]"
(rmwhitespace(added_lines) rlike regex) & !(rmwhitespace(removed_lines) rlike regex)

Thanks. Luis150902 (talk | contribs) 18:20, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Think it should actually match the tildes directly, so should be something like this, I think: 
tildes_3or4 := "~~~(?=[^~]|$)(?!<~~~~~)";
article_namespace == 0 &
added_lines rlike tildes_3or4 &
!removed_lines rlike tildes_3or4
– Κσυπ Cyp   12:51, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Cutler vandal

  • Task: Prevent edits from the Cutler vandal from being saved
  • Reason: Cutler has been spamming Wikipedia for years (and recently simple as well) with what amounts to a conspiracy laden rant (see this recent example). The first couple of sentences change, but after that it's usually the same crap. He's recently increased his activity level to the point it's getting annoying. Several articles are common targets (see the history of Jonathan Luna), but others have little to no pattern. I've created a tracking page here to give some idea, but it's far from complete. I'd asked about using the revert list (Cutler tends to include a link to a specific honorstates page) but it's probably not well suited for this. Cutler's posts tend to have several common elements in addition to that site, related to cases, so I'm hoping an edit filter will work for this. About a month ago he started hitting Simple wikipedia pretty often so they ended up using an edit filter (link to filter). It's labeled as Grundle 2600, but I don't think this is Grundle at work but someone else. Thanks! Ravensfire (talk) 21:17, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Appreciate it. He's gotten a bit active today. Ravensfire (talk) 16:04, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
@Crow:, awesome - thank you! I'll keep an eye on things and update as needed. Since the filter is private, I can't see the log files, so would you mind checking periodically to make sure we're stopping him? Thank again! Ravensfire (talk) 18:35, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Sweet! That's great! I really appreciate your help shutting him down. Ravensfire (talk) 14:52, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Alan Jackson

  • Task: Remove any of the following:
  1. Presence of "Look at the lyrics" or "#AlanJacksonKilledCountry" in edit summaries
  2. Addition of "bro-country" to genre fields of {{Infobox song}} or {{Infobox album}}
  3. Addition of any setlist.fm page with "alan-jackson" in it ( e.g. https://www.setlist.fm/setlist/alan-jackson/2017/erie-insurance-arena-erie-pa-6be27a06.html , which they clearly vandalized)

Would it be possible for the edit filter to catch any of these? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:20, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

They made another pass today. If we could stop the addition of setlist.fm, maybe we could stop him?--Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:46, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, --Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:51, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

MAybe he finally understands not to.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:15, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

New alt text

I'm curious about how/when people are adding WP:ALTTEXT to articles. Could you set up a public, log-only edit filter to identify diffs that add |alt= to articles? I believe that running it for 14 days would be enough to get a fully representative sample. If there's a better/simpler/more performant way to get a list of all diffs that happen to add new |alt= text to articles, then I'd be happy to use that, instead. (Please ping me.) Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 03:13, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

1800 986 4520 and 1800-870-7412

Fake tech support scam numbers being added to articles. Been blocking and protecting pages to try and stem it, but they seem very persistent. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:42, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Ok, added to 260. Κσυπ Cyp   19:23, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Back again

This time adding 1-877-929-3373 in the same manner across multiple articles. Really, is there ever a reason to be adding 800 numbers to articles? Beeblebrox (talk) 20:32, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Added that one now, too. Κσυπ Cyp   20:56, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Could we just stop all people repeatedly adding strings of 11 numbers (more than 3 a day) or would that cause too many false-positives? [Username Needed] 14:28, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

these guys won’t stop

I block the accounts, they create new ones, I protect the pages, they target other pages with other fake numbers. While I certainly appreciate the help so far, adding the numbers one at a time isn’t cutting it. I don’t really see any reason for anyone to be adding phone numbers to articles, could we just filter the posting of such numbers? Beeblebrox (talk) 18:25, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I've added the latest (877- number) to Filter 793. I'm not sure we can reliably pick out the various variations of phone numbers, but maybe a new test filter could be trained if someone is so inclined. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:48, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
There’s several more I don’t think we were filtering yet [23] That one escaped my attention until today because he wasn’t previously targeting the same group of articles. Was almost autoconfired. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:32, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Arishfakhan61

Filter to stop cell phone spammer

An IP-hopper is repeatedly, as in over and over again, adding a cell phone number on articles about universities in India (see Special:Contributions/2402:8100:202C:BF9B:43CA:5BE3:F5F7:7B7B for a sample of articles hit). The number is 7835041301, and these: [24], [25], [26], [27], are a sample of edits from one of the articles hit, Vellore Institute of Technology. So could we please have an edit filter that stops them? - Tom | Thomas.W talk 11:35, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Prevents vandalism related to games and how good X or Y player is at a game

Suggested regex to start with

vandals := "\bsnipe?d?er|\bcall of duty|\bhalo? reach"

have I got the regex right?

More regex should be added [Username Needed] 11:42, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

  • The above by itself will stop many more legitimate edits than vandalistic ones. A much more specific pattern would be needed. Getting an accurate pattern described is more important here than getting the regex right (the above isn't quite right if I understand what you're going for there...) CrowCaw 21:43, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Igor Janev

  • Task: Block any edit that contains the strings "Igor Janev", "Janev, Igor", or "Janevistan" on all articles and article talk pages. (Not sure about other namespaces -- would we end up interfering with discussions about the Igor Janev spammer?)

Prayer of Azarias and Hymn of the Three Children

Supersonic Transport

  • Task: Stop the addition of the term "Supersonic Transport" or "Supersonic transport" or "supersonic transport" to mainly aircraft articles by an unconfirmed IP editor.
  • Reason: Regular vandalism (can be up to two or three times a week for a number of months) by mainly 2600:1002:B1* IPs on aircraft articles, refer for example the Boeing 777 and Boeing 757. Semi-protection of articles just moves the target to other aircraft types or as today article talk pages Talk:Boeing 787. MilborneOne (talk) 18:06, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Giuseppe Verde/refrigeration

Request for Todd Coward filter

As it seems that there is an online trolling campaign against Todd Howard (changing his name to this nonsense), and the main pages have been protected, the IPs are spreading their vandalism to completely unrelated pages like Weasel (disambiguation) and Chris Coward. This would be a good place for a temporary edit filter, to at least tag instances of "Todd Coward" being added to articles, so that they are easier to find and revert, without having to resort to preemptively protecting pages. Gatemansgc (TɅ̊LK) 03:23, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

@Crow:, adding a ping for you since you seem to be all over the edit filter thing. Gatemansgc (TɅ̊LK) 03:26, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Other variants include "Hodd" and "Godd". I would even start off looking for his real name for a bit. -- ferret (talk) 03:32, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Just blocked user who added subject's name to here and here. --Dlohcierekim (talk)

Ivan Taslimson

Daniel C. Boyer

  • Task: To filter for "Daniel C. Boyer".
  • Reason: DCB was community-banned for adding his name to multiple articles (he's a non-notable artist) using his account and multiple IPs. After a period of relative quiet, he's returned to his past form, using IPs to insert the same material into articles that he was banned for doing previously. (See User talk:Daniel C. Boyer#Log of Daniel C. Boyer's post-ban socking) Although the IPs used are generally in the 172.xx range, there is apparently too much collateral damage to allow a range block. Also, he recently used an IPv6. EEng and I have been playing whack-a-mole, and Cyberpower and other admins have been semi-protecting the articles he hits, so an edit filter seems like a logical and reasonable next step, especially considering that DCB's problematic behavior goes back 15 years, so he's unlikely to stop any time soon. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:44, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
I've been trying to make this filter. It's filter 917, but it's not working. :/ I'm no good with filters, but I have the regex and I want the filter to kick in for non-extendedconfirmed users.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 19:09, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I understand you do variants etc. anyway so maybe this is obvious, but if it's not too late I suggest that it cover (in pidgen regex, since I don't know what language's in use here) /dan.*boyer/, case-insensitive and with the .* limited to some reasonable length like 30. This guy's very determined. EEng 10:42, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
    The current version of the filter currently catches variations like Daniel Boyer DanielC.Boyer to D̷̛̘̫̱̩̗͎͉̙͗̓͊̀̈́͆͜͜͡ä̛̻̙͓̫̆̀̀͟͝͝n̢̨͔̖̲̬̭̭̘͆̾͋̚̚į̸̘̟̥̠̺̣̐͑͛͛̂͟ę̶͖̲̱͈̤͔̝̘̗͌̎́̕͝͝l̴̜̼̫̞̪̀͒͒͆̎̑̓͒̇͞ͅ C̨̹̩͕̺̘̭͎̦̓̑̒͌̈́̂̓͋͜.̴̛͕̤̙̠̖̻̮̎̂̅̂̽̉̓̂ B̶̢̡̺̥͉͆͆̀͛̽̔͆̕͘͢ơ̬̼͙̖̫͇͇̻̓̈̊͗̌y̛̙̰̥̬̹̞̯͛͛̽̂̽̌̔͞͞ę̶͎̥̖̩̗̎̐͗̽̓̓̽͗͋̚͟ṟ̡̡̭̼̹̘͔͐͊͗̊̄̎͟͞. What other variations did you have in mind?—CYBERPOWER (Around) 12:46, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
    Dan Boyer. EEng 12:58, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
    Added that variant, as well as similar variants.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 13:30, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Filter created—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 18:31, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Website address for page title

  • Task: Stops non-admin users from creating pages with website addresses as their title.
  • Reason: Any page with a title of a website address (with few exceptions, and those can be added by an admin) will almost always be spam. [Username Needed] 09:51, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Username Needed the MediaWiki:Titleblacklist is the place to go for blocking page creations with certain titles. Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:16, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
OK, but this isn't about a single title, but about any title which is a web address. As far as I understand it the title blacklist is only for single titles. [Username Needed] 10:21, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
No, the title blacklist supports preventing the creation of pages with titles fitting a certain format, in the same way as the filter would work (with regex) Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:28, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Oh, ok. [Username Needed] 07:50, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Set filter 869 to warn

Based on discussion here and previous discussion here, there is now consensus to set this filter to warn. Not sure how this works with templates and stuff, so someone with more experience please have a look. Pinging @PinkAmpersand who created the warning template draft (User:PinkAmpersand/Daily Mail template). Regards SoWhy 19:09, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

@SoWhy: According the notice at the top of the page, it should be requested here: WP:Edit filter/Requested - MrX 🖋 19:14, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
@MrX: You are right of course. Somehow, I thought I was on that page. I'll just move this whole section, so don't be confused by this ping. Regards SoWhy 19:32, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
The filter seems to only be on living persons; seems to be remnant of having The Sun and the Daily Star too, and should probably be changed.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:19, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes, the filter should be broadened to include all article edits.- MrX 🖋 18:47, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Anyone? @MusikAnimal: as the last editor of the filter. Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:24, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
@SoWhy, PinkAmpersand, and Galobtter: I copy edited the proposed warning. If you're okay with it, I'll create the MediaWiki message and set the filter to show it. Is this rule (if you want to call it that) described on any policy/guideline pages? Ideally we'd link to something other than that giant RfC. — MusikAnimal talk 20:20, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
@MusikAnimal: AFAICT the only mention of it in policy is footnote 10 of WP:RS. Perhaps we could create a short information page that just quotes the closing statement in that RfC, and maybe gives a brief summary of the points raised in favor and against? — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 20:33, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
The sentence that the 10th footnote supports, reads: Beware of sources that sound reliable but do not have the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that WP:RS requires. Below that maybe have a bulleted list of commonly sourced outlets that are generally prohibited as sources (in our case Daily Mail, The Sun and Dailystar). Each entry should abbreviate the reasons why the source isn't allowed. At the end of each bulleted list item, there'd be a footnote containing the link to the relevant RfC for those wanting the full story. Going this route, we have a nice section of a guideline page explaining everything you need to know. The filter notice would link to it, meanwhile it will be more discoverable by unrelated readers of the guidelines. You get the idea :) How does that sound? — MusikAnimal talk 06:22, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Afaict there is no DAILYMAIL-style consensus to ban The Sun or The Daily Star, is there? So while an information notice makes sense in general (and we probably at one time collect all such sources in a central location akin to WP:VG/RS), the edit filter should only reflect the consensus in the discussion I mentioned, i.e. warn about adding the Daily Mail. Having another filter that logs all questionable sources makes sense as well though (e.g. Sun and Daily Star). Regards SoWhy 16:47, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes I believe you're right. We have a separate filter for The Sun and The Daily Star, currently log-only. I wasn't sure if there was some consensus around at least discouraging use of those sources, specifically, aside from the normal WP:QUESTIONABLE guideline. I still think this rule against using Daily Mail should be documented there (which I'd prefer to leave to those involved with the RfC). I don't want to send new users to the RfC. Even the closing statement is hard to process. And again if this gets mentioned in WP:RS people will find out about it through their reading of the guideline, instead of finding out via the filter.

Re - something akin to WP:VG/RS#Unreliable sources - this is what I had in mind when I tried to revamp Wikipedia:Zimdars' fake news list into a generalized, community-ran list of unreliable sources, but that idea was shot down. — MusikAnimal talk 20:15, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Detect vandalism changing uppercase 'I' to lowercase 'l'

  • Task: Detect subtle vandalism.
  • Reason: Some vandals change an uppercase 'i' or 'I' to a lowercase 'L' or 'l' which are indistinguishable with the common sans serif font. example. I see this from time-to-time with my Huggle RCP. I had to copy the text to another editor w/ courier font to see what the vandal was doing. I don't know if a filter is an effective approach. Jim1138 (talk) 08:50, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • The way the filter works, this would be extremely difficult without a huge percentage of false-positives (and thus legitimate edits blocked). CrowCaw 18:55, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Adding "pori urundai" (or similar phrasing) to articles

  • Task: It may be helpful to have an edit filter that logs adding "pori urundai" (or similar phrasing) to articles.

Similar phrasing includes the following:

  • Pori urundai
  • Pori Urandai
  • Poriyurundai
  • Poriurandai
  • Poriuranda
  • Pori urandai
  • pori urunda
  • Pori (like [28] or [29] or [30] or [31])
  • urundai (like [32])
  • Pori UrundaI
  • poriurundai
  • Poriurundai
  • Pork urindai (like [33])
  • Pori Urindai (like [34])
  • Pori urundaaaa (like [35])
  • PORI URUNDAI (like [36] or [37])
  • PORIURUNDAI (like [38] or [39])
  • pori urandai (like [40])
  • Pori Urandai
  • Pori unnda
  • porri urundai
  • PorriUrandai
  • Pori urnda
  • pori urundu
  • Pori urandha
  • Pori urnadai (see [41])


Also, I just want to caution that the phrasing may be surrounded by triple single quotation marks like here or surrounded by another character or symbol if the user fails to put a space between the phrase and the surrounding text like here or here.

Sockcatching ef

  • Task: A filter that logs every edit from non AC users over edit #50
  • Reason: Several times this year we have caught sockpuppets who have been making hundreds of mostly good edits within hours of creating an account. Most recent is IAWI (see ANI for events) And edit filter which could alert us to accounts which behave this way would be helpful. Thanks (adapted from VPT) cinco de L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 20:01, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
  • @L3X1: Testing on public filter 1, no action or tagging so you'd have to check the log file for hits. [42]. Any EFM can disable if it runs too hot or busts the condition limit. CrowCaw 20:22, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Chronic cross wiki vandalism by big IP ranges including en.wiki

Hello, please take a look at this section on Metawiki. It's related to this, this and this --Alaa :)..! 15:51, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Seems like generic crapflooding, unless anyone knows any significance around those numbers. Hard to stop unless the edits are consistent across all IPs, which they don't seem to be... CrowCaw 16:28, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
@Crow: we try new secret AF on ar.wiki, it give a good results with few errors, so if you want I can send a copy to the mailing list --Alaa :)..! 17:47, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
@Crow: done, please confirm if you received it or not. Thanks on advance --Alaa :)..! 14:43, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Filter created — MusikAnimal talk 16:37, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
@MusikAnimal and Crow: please see the filter hits --Alaa :)..! 18:31, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm on it — MusikAnimal talk 22:04, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
@MusikAnimal and Crow: hit the filter many times then pass it! --Alaa :)..! 18:43, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
@MusikAnimal and Crow: passed again, see this! --Alaa :)..! 11:22, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Again Special:Contributions/105.98.133.227 --Alaa :)..! 13:25, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

missing signature

  • Task: Detect the edit on talk pages, if the user not signing the post with ~~~~, warning the user, and add note to add ~~~~ to the end of the note or the edit will be tagged with "missing signature"
  • Reason: The filter should be used to notify editors who not signing posts on talk pages and other pages that where users should sign posts 46.227.72.88 (talk) 07:12, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
User:SineBot already does this. Watch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beeblebrox (talk • contribs) 00:56, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Damn you sinebot. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:09, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Nazi filter

  • Task: We need a "nazi" filter for articles.[43][44][45] There is currently one for user pages, but not articles. This will probably have to be a tagging filter since it has a high probability for false positives.
  • Reason: To catch vandalism like [46]. Kaldari (talk) 20:21, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Simple test running at Special:AbuseFilter/2 to see what we're working with. If the false positive rate is low enough we might just add "nazi" and similar variants to an existing filter — MusikAnimal talk 15:49, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Now at Special:AbuseFilter/921. I've made the conditions very restrictive to keep false positives at a minimum. I'll continue to monitor and if all goes well we'll at least tag the edits, perhaps also warn — MusikAnimal talk 20:21, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Roland Baines

  • Task:
  • Block the creation of pages with 'Roland Baines', 'Roland Baine', 'Roland Atwood Baines', 'Roland Atwood Baine' and 'Roland Atwood “Atty” Baines' in either title or text.
  • Either tag or block the addition of the aforementioned strings as well as 'first feline to attend college', 'first cat to attend college' and 'Cat’s Out Of The Bag: How We Can Scratch Our Way Out Of The Recession' to pages in article- and draft-space.
@Cyberpower678: Thanks! AddWittyNameHere (talk) 18:21, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Filter name

  • Task: Prevent edits with the word "toper" at Le Cordon Bleu
  • Reason: Prevent ongoing vandalism by an editor who uses multiple accounts and many different IP addresses (so simple blocks and range blocks would be ineffective) to persistently vandalize this article. ElKevbo (talk) 19:40, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

A filter for malformed speedy deletion templates

  • Task: This filter should detect if someone editing a page in any namespace adds a speedy deletion template that is substed (i.e. by typing {{subst:db-whatever}} rather than {{db-whatever}}, where "whatever" is just the criterion under which that page is supposed to be tagged for deletion).
  • Reason: Because many new users mistakenly add speedy deletion templates to pages by substing them, which leads to their attempt to have the page speedied usually failing, as the page is not placed in the category for speedy candidates if the template is substed. This can lead to pages that should be speedied sitting around for weeks (I myself have seen at least 3 examples of this in recent days). Preventing these mistakes would certainly help new users. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 21:30, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
I added Module:Unsubst to all of the CSD templates, so a filter isn't needed. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:14, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Special:AbuseFilter/793

  • Task: I suggest adding the following cell phone number: 9911418001
  • Reason: Extension of Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Rangeblock_feasible?. Based on that discussion, zzuuzz added four numbers recently (and the graph seems to show it's hurting :). IP has just popped up with a new number (see above)[47], which on inspection turns out to have been used before (undetected spam) [48]. Suggest filtering before the spammer identifies this one as an open avenue and goes to town. - Alternatively, let me know how many instances are required before inclusion in filter should be requested. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:44, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 Done (26 June) -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:27, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Komail Shayan

  • Task: Prevent addition of "Komail Shayan" to articles.
  • Reason: Since mid-2016, Iranian IPs have been adding "Komail Shayan" to Indian film articles, typically as the name of the film's score/soundtrack composer. It's always bogus, thus, it is vandalism. I've written up an LTA case, which I haven't released into Wikipedia space yet. I have no experience with edit filters, so I don't know how they work, but is there any way to prevent this guy from adding this name, or permutations like "Shayan Komail" or "[[Komail]] [[Shayan]]", etc? Curious for your input. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:00, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
LTA case now resides in Wikipedia space. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:38, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Oh, Can we also anticipate permutations without spaces like KomailShayan? See this. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:04, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi zzuuzz, could I please trouble you to see if my request above has merit? Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:10, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Yup the request looks reasonable. We just need a filter for it... -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:24, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Any EFM-s here: Something similar to 787 would be simple and more than enough. Dat GuyTalkContribs 19:05, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

{{archive now}}

Filter name

  • Task: Report removal of or changing parameters of {{infobox number}} or Category:Integers from number pages (to be defined later).
  • Reason: The most common vandalism on number pages consists of changing numbers in the opening paragraph and/or removing the infobox or the category. Changing the target of infobox number is next most common. I often catch them, even if ClueBot doesn't, as I frequently monitor related changes to the category. I think the cleanest definition of "number pages" IS the category, but removing the category while changing the article to a redirect to a number page probably should not be reported. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:57, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
  • @Arthur Rubin: The first kind you refer to may be difficult to flag on, but can you link a few examples so I can try to formulate a searchable pattern? Category removal should be simple enough to code; we probably have similar filters this could be added to. CrowCaw 20:32, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Zombie Bull

@Ivanvector: Is this still going on, or have they moved on to the next big thing? CrowCaw 20:39, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

phone number

1-800-674-9438

Thank you. They’re back today adding links to https://hphelpnumber.com an apparent entire website they’ve set up for pushing their fake tech support numbers. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:48, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
By the way if you’re bored you can go to that site and get “live help” from the scammers, waste a little of their time. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:55, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Anti-Putin vandal

A vandal from different IPs makes such edit summaries (only visible to admins). They appear in random articles and only use one IP for one such edit. This is going on for at least several months. Is an edit filter a proper way to stop this, and if so, could somebody help setting it up? Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:31, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Spamming campaign

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Edit_filter/Requested/Archive_11&oldid=1092677872"