![]() | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
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)
edit_delta
, e.g. only log "added content" when the size decreases, etc.
Suffusion of Yellow (
talk)
23:08, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
user_mobile == 1
is there? Since 633 now only checks user_app == 1
Galobtter (
pingó mió)
09:58, 4 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)
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.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)
!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)
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.
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)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.
Invalid
OS (
talk)
14:24, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
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)
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.
Invalid
OS (
talk)
16:00, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
fat little body off
and be, of course, flies
are the best 2 options
moonythedwarf (Braden N.)
16:01, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
b, of course, flies
--
moonythedwarf (Braden N.)
16:09, 30 January 2020 (UTC)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)
globeelectionshistory.science.blog
website, which is being adding into a number of election articles for
spam purposes. Can't further specify articles or users because attempts to add this site to articles on ongoing elections have taken place since mid-to-late 2019 by the same person operating a broad number of IP accounts.
Impru20
talk
15:33, 28 January 2020 (UTC)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)
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)
Thanks MilborneOne ( talk) 18:07, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
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.
Invalid
OS (
talk)
12:53, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
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)
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.
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)
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.
Crow
Caw
18:15, 1 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.
!("confirmed" in user_groups) &
page_namespace != 3 &
added_lines contains "{{unblock}}"
Task; To disallowed un-resealable editing in template tags.
help a lot in [your] editing and contribution. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA talk 19:56, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
BUT HERE IS THE MAIN AIM OF REQUESTING THIS.
( F5pillar 20:27, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Preventing un-reseanable templates edit. I am sorry, but can you expalin what the filter is supposed to do? ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA talk 20:31, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
But if it comes to that, No problem. Just consider my request please. Regards. ( F5pillar 21:01, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
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.
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)
@
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)
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 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 22 23 24 25 26 27. 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)
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)
Moving discussion to Noticeboard. Signed, The4lines |||| ( You Asked?) ( What I have Done.) 19:32, 18 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)
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:
And since we're creating cross-namespace move filters:
– Thjarkur (talk) 22:20, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
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)
Re-upping this. [ contributions from this IP range] (which I also reported to ANI) are a few of many, many examples of this behavior.
Re-upping again. This is an ongoing problem across many articles. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 22:08, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
Add the word 'retard' & 'retarded' to 189
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)
Adding a placeholder here for what appears to be some sort of cross-site/cross-wiki spambot text I ran across on User:ChristopherFko ( | 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Done at
793 (for the record only, as the filter is hidden) –
Darkwind (
talk)
09:35, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
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)
\{\{(WikiProject|WP) (.*)\}\}
that
Template:$1 $2
exists (case insensitive). Or something like it.![]() | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
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)
edit_delta
, e.g. only log "added content" when the size decreases, etc.
Suffusion of Yellow (
talk)
23:08, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
user_mobile == 1
is there? Since 633 now only checks user_app == 1
Galobtter (
pingó mió)
09:58, 4 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)
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.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)
!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)
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.
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)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.
Invalid
OS (
talk)
14:24, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
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)
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.
Invalid
OS (
talk)
16:00, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
fat little body off
and be, of course, flies
are the best 2 options
moonythedwarf (Braden N.)
16:01, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
b, of course, flies
--
moonythedwarf (Braden N.)
16:09, 30 January 2020 (UTC)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)
globeelectionshistory.science.blog
website, which is being adding into a number of election articles for
spam purposes. Can't further specify articles or users because attempts to add this site to articles on ongoing elections have taken place since mid-to-late 2019 by the same person operating a broad number of IP accounts.
Impru20
talk
15:33, 28 January 2020 (UTC)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)
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)
Thanks MilborneOne ( talk) 18:07, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
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.
Invalid
OS (
talk)
12:53, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
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)
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.
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)
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.
Crow
Caw
18:15, 1 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.
!("confirmed" in user_groups) &
page_namespace != 3 &
added_lines contains "{{unblock}}"
Task; To disallowed un-resealable editing in template tags.
help a lot in [your] editing and contribution. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA talk 19:56, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
BUT HERE IS THE MAIN AIM OF REQUESTING THIS.
( F5pillar 20:27, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Preventing un-reseanable templates edit. I am sorry, but can you expalin what the filter is supposed to do? ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA talk 20:31, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
But if it comes to that, No problem. Just consider my request please. Regards. ( F5pillar 21:01, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
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.
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)
@
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)
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 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 22 23 24 25 26 27. 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)
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)
Moving discussion to Noticeboard. Signed, The4lines |||| ( You Asked?) ( What I have Done.) 19:32, 18 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)
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:
And since we're creating cross-namespace move filters:
– Thjarkur (talk) 22:20, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
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)
Re-upping this. [ contributions from this IP range] (which I also reported to ANI) are a few of many, many examples of this behavior.
Re-upping again. This is an ongoing problem across many articles. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 22:08, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
Add the word 'retard' & 'retarded' to 189
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)
Adding a placeholder here for what appears to be some sort of cross-site/cross-wiki spambot text I ran across on User:ChristopherFko ( | 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Done at
793 (for the record only, as the filter is hidden) –
Darkwind (
talk)
09:35, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
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)
\{\{(WikiProject|WP) (.*)\}\}
that
Template:$1 $2
exists (case insensitive). Or something like it.