== Brief description of filter ==
*'''Task''': What is the filter supposed to do? To what pages and editors does it apply?
*'''Reason''': Why is the filter needed?
*'''Diffs''': Diffs of sample edits/cases. If the diffs are revdelled, consider emailing their contents to the mailing list.
~~~~

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21

This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 8 sections are present.

Just a note: it probably would be more useful if this filter, once triggered, would block further instances around the same time the bot reports to AIV for triggering the filter 5+ times instead of simply logging while allowing further disruption. It can take 20 minutes and over before derp revert vandals get blocked while a small army of patrollers must remain active to revert each edit, which appears suboptimal (i.e. see the still-ongoing 114.17.235.146). Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 02:52, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So disruption persisted for 34 minutes for this IP address alone. —PaleoNeonate – 02:58, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

29 minutes before 46.150.88.31 was stopped/blocked. —PaleoNeonate – 04:04, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd support this for a trial period. Checking the last 500 times this filter fired, just a handful of the Ips that triggered it are not blocked as of now. Crow^Caw 19:16, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Task: Prevent adding File: links to Template: space pages by non-autoconfirmed users.
• Reason: Perhaps that this would be a way to mitigate events like Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Obscene_image_inexplicably_appearing_in_William_III_of_England which appear to be perennial. An alternative would be to restrict all edits to Template: space for new accounts, but an RFC (and another solution than a filter) may be appropriate then. —PaleoNeonate – 07:57, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@PaleoNeonate: There's already a disabled filter for it. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 08:15, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DatGuy: Ah? That's good to know; I suspect that it either wasn't ready, or bogus? Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 08:43, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Yes, the filter should be broadened to include all article edits.- MrX 🖋 18:47, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone? @MusikAnimal: as the last editor of the filter. Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:24, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• @MusikAnimal: Has this been implemented yet? The filter is triggered and logged correctly, but there is no warning. Would you mind checking it?. Thank you.- MrX 🖋 01:44, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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... Crow^Caw 16:28, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

• Please do! :) Crow^Caw 19:27, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Crow: done, please confirm if you received it or not. Thanks on advance --Alaa :)..! 14:43, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Filter created — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:37, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MusikAnimal and Crow: please see the filter hits --Alaa :)..! 18:31, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm on it — MusikAnimal ^talk 22:04, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MusikAnimal and Crow: hit the filter many times then pass it! --Alaa :)..! 18:43, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Made a tweak to the filter. Crow^Caw 20:04, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MusikAnimal and Crow: passed again, see this! --Alaa :)..! 11:22, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again Special:Contributions/105.98.133.227 --Alaa :)..! 13:25, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

User:SineBot already does this. Watch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beeblebrox (talk • contribs) 00:56, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Damn you sinebot. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:09, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Task: We need a "nazi" filter for articles.[1][2][3] 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 [4]. Kaldari (talk) 20:21, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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.

• Reason: Persistent hoaxing/vandalism by prolific IP-hopping sockmaster User:RJCola. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 06:05, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Filter created—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 18:19, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyberpower678: Thanks! AddWittyNameHere (talk) 18:21, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

LTA case now resides in Wikipedia space. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:38, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, Can we also anticipate permutations without spaces like KomailShayan? See this. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:04, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[5], which on inspection turns out to have been used before (undetected spam) [6]. 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)[reply]

 Done (26 June) -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:27, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• Task: Add the word "Kumioko" to the long term abuse filter.
• Reason: He keeps posting things like this [7] and this [8] on multiple pages using multiple IPs. See Wikipedia:Edit filter noticeboard#How expensive? for more details. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:08, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not personally sure a filter is necessary, but I'd just note that filter 58 wouldn't work for this. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:23, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]