Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This page is for people without the abusefilter-modify permission or people without sufficient knowledge about the coding involved to make requests to enact Abuse filters. Please add a new section at the top of current requests using the following format:

===Filter name===
*'''Task''': What is the filter supposed to do? To what pages and editors does it apply?
*'''Reason''': Why is the filter needed.
- ~~~~

Bear the following in mind:

  • Filters are applied to all edits. Therefore, problematic changes that apply to a single page are likely not suitable for an abuse filter.
  • Each filter takes time to run, making editing (and to some extent other things) slightly slower. The time is only a few milliseconds per filter, but with enough filters that adds up. When the system is near its limit, adding a new filter may require removing another filter in order to keep the system within its limits.
  • There is a limit to what filters can check for. More complex, non-essential tasks, such as those that need to perform a more in-depth check of the page or fetch information that the filter system does not have access to, are better served by separate software, run by an individual user on their own machine or dedicated server such as the Toolserver, rather than those used to actually host Wikipedia.
  • It used to be called the abuse filter for a reason. Contributors are not expected to have read all 200+ policies, guidelines and style pages. Trivial formatting mistakes and edits that at first glance look fine but go against some obscure style guideline or arbitration ruling are not suitable candidates for an abuse filter -- quite apart from performance concerns, if it doesn't harm the project, it is best not to hassle new contributors because of it.
  • To prevent the creation of pages with certain names, MediaWiki:Titleblacklist is usually a better way to handle the problem - see MediaWiki talk:Titleblacklist for details.
  • To prevent the addition of problematic external links, please make your request at the spam blacklist.

Current requests[edit]

Import filter from test wiki[edit]

  • Task: Tag all removal of references by editors who aren't autoconfirmed and have less than 10 edits.
  • Reason: Already seen this problem categorized with general vandalism, this is more specific. Often removal of references are done in good faith, so applying a different tag would subject it to a different kind of verification of authenticity. It would prevent majority of the good faith ref removal from being rapidly rollbacked by editors who do quick patrolling. Link at TestWiki EthicallyYours! 17:39, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
@Ethically Yours: This seems like a sensible filter, can I ask what the use of "& (action == 'edit')" is? It seems redundant since- the user has to edit to remove lines, but I'm relatively new to edit filters so I could be mistaken. Sam Walton (talk) 23:19, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't really hold much significance. I was testing in my own usual way, so typed in that. EthicallyYours! 07:46, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Link Smurf[edit]

Fredddie 19:57, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Aas Mohamad Ali Khan Abbasi[edit]

  • Task: Find variants of a name and log. Userspace, new articles that get quickly deleted, existing articles.
  • Reason: User creating many socks: User:Anna Frodesiak/Orange sandbox. He drops his name either as a username, userpage content at a userpage (often an unrelated username), in fake or promo articles, and sometimes as a minor cast member in bollywood articles. An idea of the variants can be seen in the Orange sandbox. Many thanks for your consideration. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:18, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
I can probably find all with searches, so feel free to decline this one. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:24, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
@Anna Frodesiak: are you sure? This wouldn't be too hard a filter to set up. Sam Walton (talk) 20:08, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Sam! :) Do you mean a few minutes of effort? Would it make the servers glow orange and catch fire or even slow things down a teensy bit? If yes and no, then yes please. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:12, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, I was going to say that there would be no fire in sight, but given that I just created the filter at Special:AbuseFilter/666 I can't make any promises. Log only for now! Sam Walton (talk) 23:09, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Long term abuse case[edit]

Black Kite (talk) 10:45, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Log only for now at Special:AbuseFilter/663. Sam Walton (talk) 11:37, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Draft Review by Non-Reviewer[edit]

- EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 02:49, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Best to wait a while in case anyone objects. If it gets consensus, I'll do it. Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:52, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Anti-semite edit filter[edit]

  • Task - Block any edits by new accounts or IPs that accuse people of being anti-Semites, or anything similar to that. Should mostly apply to User talk and User namespace. Triggering of this edit filter should probably cause a bot to immediately file an AIV report. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:49, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Reason: See Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/JarlaxleArtemis - there is a freight train's worth of socks and the issue isn't stopping. A large amount of people get targeted by this guy. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:48, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Lukeno94, "anti-Semites, or anything similar to that" is a little broad and I can't find anything obvious about such terms on the LTA page, could you specify what kind of terms would be useful to track? Sam Walton (talk) 14:54, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Not off the top of my head, because most of the examples have been revdelled, and I don't have access to those, I'm afraid. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:02, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • @Lukeno94: @Zzuuzz: Log only at Special:AbuseFilter/660 for now. Currently only searching for anti-semite related strings, will see how this goes. If there are too many false flags we can restrict the namespace. Sam Walton (talk) 21:31, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Ping didn't work, but I'm watching this page anyway. It may be a little while before JA comes back and starts this abuse again, because it seems to come in bursts; however, when they do get going, it can happen at an extremely high rate of speed. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:40, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Examples: These edit summaries are typical of one particular moron who has fallen in love with me: Revert trolling by anti-Semitic vandal Revert anti-Semitic vandal Reverting content added by anti-Semitic propagandists For several days practically every edit I and a few others make, and often the associated talk page as well, are attacked by this guy. I block the IPs as they appear, but it isn't enough. Can I suggest: catch all uses of the words "antisemitic", "antisemite", "anti-Semitic", "anti-Semite" in edit summaries by non-authconfirmed editors. That would catch the majority of recent cases, though I fear he will adapt. Thanks. Zerotalk 12:42, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Yep, looks like they're back again, with the usual bollocks. This isn't JA's only MO, but it's the most blatant one, and the most disruptive one. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:59, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • It may also be worth looking for things similar to "muslims control Wikipedia", like [1], but that sort of thing is a lot broader. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:05, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: I am almost certain this is not going to work. Filter 58 has been pretty much the filter targeting Grawp and that has had limited results. There are some other filters like Filter 294 that have been modified to include him but again they have limited results. Not going to get much into details per BEANS but there's a reason why he's been here for years. Elockid (Talk) 13:57, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Maybe not, but if it makes even a small dent in the harrassment, then IMO it's worth it. One does not surrender in the face of insurmountable odds without a fight, and all that stuff. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:03, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • A filter could be made, but due to filter limitations, it would only be a short term solution. I would also suggest contacting NawlinWiki since he develops filters relating to him and other long-term abusers. Elockid (Talk) 14:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • The filter (660) caught with a suitable, now hidden, flag. Sam Walton (talk) 14:26, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I suppose that could stop some of his edits. Though some of things like in my talk page I think will produce false positives considering the subject matter. Elockid (Talk) 16:17, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Hmm indeed. It's going to be hard to implement a warn or disallow filter for this editor I think. Sam Walton (talk) 21:06, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Disabled the filter for now, definitely needs refinement; anti-semit* is too broad. Sam Walton (talk) 19:56, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Restore filter 342 and list pages caught by it on Special:NewPages and Special:NewPagesFeed[edit]

  • Task: Re-enable filter 342 (redirect becoming article), and show pages caught by it on Special:NewPages and Special:NewPagesFeed. Apply to all pages in mainspace, and all non-autopatrolled editors (i.e., remove the editcount restriction).
  • Reason: See discussion at Village Pump: This will allow patrolling of what are, for all practical purposes, new content pages that currently bypass patrolling. Please advise if the second part requires developer action.

- Swpbtalk 18:35, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

  • I think this needs closing first since there were some opposes and discussion. Additionally it seems software changes are needed before such a filter would be useful to anyone. Sam Walton (talk) 14:50, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Removing Template:Dead link[edit]

  • Task: Mark removal of {{dead link}}, as well as the removal of all templates that redirect to it. Just tag; don't warn or prevent the user from making the edit
  • Reason: See WP:AN#SEO spam attack. We've discovered people whose idea of spamming is to remove broken links and replace them with spam. There's no way to track when comparatively new accounts do this on the most random articles (e.g. Special:Contributions/Tomofm2 did this at Eyepiece, Excise tax in the United States, Camp Tarawa, and Kona Pacific Public Charter School, all with deceptive edit summaries), so it would be easiest if we could just look through a log of all actions in which dead links were removed. Of course, a lot of these URL replacements (most, perhaps?) will be valid; that's why we just need to tag them, so that a human can look through them. - Nyttend (talk) 20:53, 5 December 2014 (UTC) PS, are there any bots that remove these links? If so, the filter might be instructed to exclude edits by flagged bots, since they're not going to be spamming. Nyttend (talk) 21:50, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
An additional flag might be the inclusion of 'dead link' in the edit summary. User Tomofm2 wrote it in one and the newly noticed user Divine4778 also wrote it in some of their edit summaries. Sam Walton (talk) 17:58, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Would it also be possible to track changes to the url that precedes a {{dead link}} template? If we start monitoring the use of this template the SEO people might just leave it in the articles and replace the broken links anyway. So a possible marker should also detect changes to links that have been flagged with [dead link]. De728631 (talk) 01:00, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
If we detect "dead link" in removed_lines and completely ignore whether it occurs in added_lines, it will accomplish that. Jackmcbarn (talk) 05:45, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
See the recently created WP:DEADLINKSPAM for an overview. Sam Walton (talk) 16:52, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Deny posting of "anonymous philippines"[edit]

  • See [3] (admin only unless you beat the delete) for today's example. Edit summary was "screw Wikipedia long live anonymous Philippines". CrowCaw 19:12, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
CambridgeBayWeather, Crow, is this still an issue? I'll look into creating a filter if so. Sam Walton (talk) 12:19, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't think so but I can't be sure. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 12:42, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Not at this time, though the sockmaster is still active. He's currently back to his original M.O. of posting questionable organized crime articles. CrowCaw 16:15, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Warn about accidentally pasting in code[edit]

  • Task: Warn users when they try to submit an edit containing the addition of <%= item.timeFlag %>.
  • Reason: I've seen <%= item.timeFlag %> appear in article references several times (e.g. [4]); I guess it's caused by accidentally pasting in more than one meant to when filling out the |title= parameter of a reference.

- It Is Me Here t / c 21:42, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

DOI Citations[edit]

  • Task: Tag when the doi= paramater changes in Templates {{Cite journal}} and {{Cite doi}} in the main namespace.
  • Reason: As part of a reimplementing User:Citation bot, for Sginalling Open Access Project, whenever an Open Access reference is cited, we want to import the article to Wikisource, and give the Citation a special badge. Right now that is done by polling these templates for changes, so the reaction time is about 30-60 minutes. With this tag, we could make it happen almost instantly.

- Maximilianklein (talk) 19:20, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Maximilianklein is this still needed? If so I'll look into making a filter. Sam Walton (talk) 20:10, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Twin City vandalism[edit]

  • Task: The filter should identify all edits by anonymous users form certain IP ranges in the main name space where the edit summary contains "Twin cities", "Sister cities" and the like. Eventually, I'd like these kinds of edits to be forbidden, but for starters, logging them would be OK. The most recently active IP ranges were, and, for a full list see the documentation page below. FYI: A similar filter is in place in the German wikipedia as well as the French (private) and Italian ones.
  • Reason: See documentation page: meta:user:Controlling/Twin City Vandal.

Thanks, - Controlling (talk) 16:30, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Has this been a problem on English Wikipedia? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:31, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, for examples the the contribs of this IP or this one or see my edits, which are almost exclusively rollbacks of this sort of vandalism. --Null Drei Nullformerly Controllingtalk 14:15, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
I checked it with my test filter; not one hit since I did it - and the current version dates back to Sep. 4th. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:40, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
First, thanks for your help. While the vandalism has been quite persistent, it's not a daily occurrence and it has indeed become less frequent recently. Again, see my edits for an estimate on the frequency ('though I probably don't catch all of them). If that's not enough for an edit filter, then I guess I'll have to keep trying to ctach it manually. --Null Drei Nullformerly Controllingtalk 15:53, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Redirects to badimages[edit]

To deal with socks of 1abacada (talk · contribs) who have discovered that they can redirect pages to files on the bad images list, a filter is needed to prevent this, at least for autoconfirmed users (though I can't see a reason for anyone short of an admin to do this). Acroterion (talk) 02:51, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

@Acroterion: I've created a filter definition that will stop this behavior and emailed it to you. To enable it here, first add yourself to the abusefilter group at Special:UserRights/Acroterion. Then, go to Special:AbuseFilter/import, paste it, click "Import data", then click "Save filter". Jackmcbarn (talk) 00:50, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Acroterion did this filer get set up? Sam Walton (talk) 21:57, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Not that I'm aware of: I don't have the technical expertise to review it, and since I'd b e responsible for its effects, I didn't make myself an abuse filter editor, etc. Acroterion (talk) 21:54, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Replacing text with repeating characters vandalism[edit]

  • Task: To disallow editors that not only add repeating characters to an article but also remove content.
  • Reason: I did a check on the recent changes page that all of the most recent edits that remove content under the "repeating characters" tag filter are vandalism.

- Minima© (talk) 22:06, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

John Galea[edit]

  • Task: Prevent creation of pages using the text of the deleted page John Galea. I'd suggest filtering on anything containing the name "John Galea" (although he's not been averse to mis-spelling his own name in order to get around create protection).
  • Reason: The page has been repeatedly recreated under multiple alternate titles by a veritable army of socks. Salting and rangeblocking are not effective measures against this user.

- Yunshui  15:19, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Yunshui, could you list some of the other article titles? And do you know if this is still an issue? Sam Walton (talk) 00:03, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
@Samwalton09: Sure - some of the other titles were: John Galea (Singer), John Galea (singer), John- Paul Galea, John Galea!, John Galea (musican), John_Galeaa, John Galeea, John Galea (Paul), Do it my way, (Singer) John Galea, John Galea (performer), John Galea ( the musican ), J.Galea, John Galea (artist)... Not an exhaustive list by any means, but it gives you an idea of the problem. He was still apparently socking as recently as last week (albeit after a hiatus of several months), so I'd say the problem is still ongoing. Thanks for taking a look. Yunshui  10:12, 5 February 2015 (UTC)


Joshua Hawkins fakearticling[edit]

  • Task: Block edits from adding "Joshua Hawkins"/"Josh Hawkins"+"Motorsports" or "Joshua Hawkins"/"Josh Hawkins"+"MedIevil"/"Medievil" or "Joshua Hawkins"/"Josh Hawkins"+"IndyCar"
  • Reason: This is a serial sockmaster; see Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of MrJoshThehawk. All of these accounts are "throwaways" that appear, create a user talk page with a WP:HOAX/WP:FAKEARTICLE team chart for NASCAR or, in one case, IndyCar that has "Joshua Hawkins Motorsports" with "Josh Hawkins" as a star driver (and before it was salted creating a hoax bio at Joshua Hawkins with articlespace links to same), and then vanish before, a month or two later, popping up under a new account to do the exact same thing. Given the serial nature here blocks are useless; therefore I believe an edit filter is appropriate for putting a stop to this the next time they try. - The Bushranger One ping only 11:35, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Inexperienced users removing amboxes[edit]

  • Task: Sometimes, inexperienced users try to remove article maintenance tags (amboxes) from articles. Every time an IP or unconfirmed user removes a {{notability}}, {{news release}}, or {{COI}} ambox from any article, please tag the edit.
  • Reason: This filter will help us to notice edits such as these.[6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21] It's happened many times on Wikipedia that COI users have wrongly removed such amboxes. Often, they use a blank edit summary, making the damage hard to catch. Tagging the edits will make it easier for us to notice and undo the damage.

(Dear Wikipedians: Please freely edit and improve this filter request.)

Thank you. —Unforgettableid (talk) 00:43, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Not done. Detecting each and every tag that gets removed would put a severe strain on the server resources. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:13, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
I thank you for your reply.
  1. OK, we could watch only for the removal of {{notability}} (perhaps the most important ambox) and ignore all other ambox removals.
  2. Let me suggest some non-obvious optimizations (besides the obvious "look at user groups first"). For one thing, we could only look at edits where edit_delta is between -10 and -100. This is an imperfect heuristic, but would save time. Next, we could look only at edits where the edit summary is blank: if there's an edit summary, then this is probably either a section edit or some other non-tag-removal edit. Okay; by now we've already eliminated a huge proportion of edits. Next, we could look at the first byte of either old_wikitext or removed_lines: if it's not '{', we can stop now. Finally, we could search through the contents of removed_lines. We could use contains "otability": a literal search is probably faster than a glob or regexp search. Would such a filter still be too CPU-intensive? And if so: which condition would be the biggest problem?
  3. This filter is non-crucial and non-private. If the client has JavaScript on, we could theoretically design the infrastructure to offload all non-crucial, non-private filtering work to the client; if the client has JavaScript off, we could just skip those filters.
Unforgettableid (talk) 07:53, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Page deleted, then identically-named page created[edit]

  • Task: Say a page has been deleted, then a non-sysop with an editcount under 5,000 later creates another page with the same title. If this happens, please silently tag the page-creating edit with a tag. The tag should say that a page with that name has already been deleted X number of times.
  • Reason: This will help Wikipedians to more easily notice when a formerly-deleted page has been recreated. This will help make it more obvious to them when they should nominate "new" pages for deletion. It will also make it more obvious when a page title should be SALTed.

Thank you, —Unforgettableid (talk) 08:38, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken, the edit filter can't see the deletion log for a page being edited, so this isn't technically possible. A bot would be better for this. Jackmcbarn (talk) 13:51, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. AnomieBOT (talk · contribs) runs a task called NewArticleAFDTagger, which tags recreated AfD-deleted pages with {{old AfD multi}}. AFAIK there is no bot which tags recreated PROD-deleted pages or recreated speedily-deleted pages. Where is the best place for me to request that someone provide that functionality? (In vaguely-related news: bugzilla:10331, which requests a page-creation log, is still unfixed despite five years and one patch.) Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 06:03, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
That would be Wikipedia:Bot requests. Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:37, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
OK, thank you. So it's best that I go there instead of contacting User:Anomie directly? —Unforgettableid (talk) 19:14, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Can do both. Wifione Message 19:34, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
I requested a {{old prod full}} tagger bot at Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 57#Bot to tag "PROD Survivors" and "Recreated Articles", and put a {{talkback}} template at User talk:AnomieBOT, but (despite one empty promise I got) nobody coded anything. Many have thought about writing such a bot, but nobody has ever written a practical one; I explained the matter further in my request there. I didn't create a bot request to tag recreations of CSD-deleted pages, but someone else is welcome to do so if they like. —Unforgettableid (talk) 07:53, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Hmm, I just had an idea for how this can be implemented:

(action = "delete") | (action = "edit" & old_size = 0)

with a per-page throttle.
However whether this might be worth it or better suited for a bot is another question. Triplestop (talk) 03:53, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
That's an interesting solution. I hadn't thought of using the rate limiter like that. It looks like it would work, but it seems a bit hacky and would have a few FPs and oddities, such as tagging the deletion of a newly-created page, and tagging undoing of page blanking. Jackmcbarn (talk) 12:45, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Plot summary copyvios[edit]

  • This could be narrowed down to large edit_deltas of non-autoconfirmed editors to plot/synopsis sections, and as such I can see some merit to the proposal. Sam Walton (talk) 15:21, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • @MER-C: Would you mind taking a look through the past few days of diffs to see if sufficient numbers are copyvios for this filter to be worth it? Sam Walton (talk) 17:22, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I had a look and found nothing. However, you've set the size threshold too high -- my experience is that the copyvio plot summaries are usually only one paragraph (3-7 lines) long. I've changed it to 400 bytes. You are also missing the very important scenario when a plot section is added without there being an existing section and an edit summary -- you'll want to search for the addition of a level 2 header like [Pp]lot|[Ss]ynopsis as the trigger. MER-C 12:04, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • That's fair, and yes I hadn't thought of that, added a flag for that too. Sam Walton (talk) 20:03, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Disabled for now because I've run out of ideas on how to narrow this. Plot/synopsis/summary is far too vague a search term to be useful. Sam Walton (talk) 19:54, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

IPs breaking brackets[edit]

  • Task: Apply a filter to articles flagged by BracketBot which are made by IP editors.
  • Reason: I've noticed that 80-85% of these edits are done by vandals.

BracketBot just started up this week. The bot flags an article and notifies the editor that the edit caused a bracket to become unbalanced. An example would be a missing [] on a reference or wikilink. I've noticed that the cause was vandalism 80-85% of the time. - Bgwhite (talk) 20:29, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator observation)I don't think this is technically feasible, because it's too late for an edit filter to apply once BracketBot sees the edit. -- (talk) 04:04, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Could you get BracketBot to add the words "Note: probably vandalism" to the history of the article in question? Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 07:08, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
I agree with the addition but only in the case of anonymous IPs. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:58, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
BracketBot doesn't edit the article, so it can't put anything there. If the filter can match non regular expressions (i.e. nested brackets) then it might be an idea to have the filter apply a tag to IP edits. As it stands, BracketBot uses the same headings as counter vandals, in the hope that they will notice the notifications and revert if also vandalism. 930913(Congratulate) 22:19, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Okay. There are a few ways BracketBot could alert Wikipedians to the fact that the edit may be vandalism. It could make a dummy edit and add a note to the edit summary, "Note: the previous edit by IP 111.222.333.444 was probably vandalism." Or it could add some HTML comments (maybe about vandalism) to the article and a similar note to the edit summary. Or it could write on the talk page, "==Possible adverse edit by IP Hello, I'm BracketBot. Unregistered users sometimes make edits which leave unpaired brackets on a page. About 80% of the time, such edits are adverse edits. I have automatically detected that JohnDoe's edit to Example article may have created unpaired brackets. Dear editors: Was this edit vandalism?" Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 22:34, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
@Unforgettableid: It already does this, albeit not so pointedly, by putting notifications under the same heading as that of vandalism warnings. 930913(Congratulate) 09:54, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Mullingar libel[edit]

  • Task: Deter certain libelous statements. Probably sufficient to apply to page Mullingar, IP editors only.
  • Reason: Repeated additions like this from various IPs over a number of years, usually aimed at the same person. Please see history of Mullingar for further instances (though some have been oversighted). If you have a better way to achieve this than edit filtering, that's good too.

- Certes (talk) 18:18, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

  • This doesn't seem like something that fits the scope of an edit filter. At least, in the sense that this is largely a one article issue, and can be solved with a watchlist; Saving that extra few milliseconds per edit that make the difference between robust and just meh server provisioning. -T.I.M(Contact) 22:23, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Dear Certes: Would Wikipedia:Requests for page protection work? If not, why not? —Unforgettableid (talk) 06:46, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for taking an interest. Page protection has worked temporarily in the past. The problem is that it is short term, because other IPs occasionally make positive contributions to this page. For several years, this vandal's pattern has been to reappear every few months after protection has lapsed. This tiny quantity of vandalism is trivial by the scale of Wikipedia, but it does make serious allegations against a person who is real and has reported the matter. An edit filter probably isn't the ideal solution either; better suggestions welcome! Or maybe we should leave it as a watchlist item and just accept that, once in a while, a search for the person's name will come up with an unfortunate result. Certes (talk) 12:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


  • At Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Voobly_spam_again I'm told this site is already blacklisted, and I should come here. IP addresses are still spamming links to in articles it has been removed from over the months/years multiple times. I listed some, but certainly nowhere near to all, of the cases of that happening at the Wikiproject for spam. If its on the blacklist already, shouldn't it automatically be in the filter? Dream Focus 22:07, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
The blacklist isn't stopping those edits because they're not creating external links. The blacklist will only prevent you from creating an external link to that particular site. It won't, however, stop you from inserting the text "" outside of a link. For that you would need an edit filter, and in this case, I think it would probably be warranted. If I have some time later, I'll try to add one. (But if someone else has time before I get to it, feel free to jump in.) ‑Scottywong| squeal _ 22:31, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Special:AbuseFilter/535. King of ♠ 08:25, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Lions at Cat Creek[edit]

  • Task: This filter would disallow all edits that add the words "Lion"/"Lions"+"Cat Creek" to any article, and disallowing any addition of the word "lion" that is not "mountain lion" to Cat Creek, Montana. Disallowing edit summaries including "ROOOOOAAARR" in varying levels of capitalisation and number of letters would also be good but might be more difficult.
  • Reason: The saga can be seen at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Catcreekcitycouncil/Archive. Basically, it appears some students at a California high school (as this article is also a target of different vandalism by the same group of socks) are determined to add the fact "there are lions in Cat Creek, Montana" to the article of the community in question. They were engaged, claimed one book 'of which only a few copies exist' was their source (and that all American naturalists were wrong, and that no, it wasn't the archaric useage of "lion" for "mountain lion"), and it finally resulted in a massive sockfarm being unearthed and the article full-protected...and over the last year has seen the article full-protected several times again as these trolls repeatedly game the system for autoconfirmation. The final straw came today, when, with the Cat Creek article locked, they started adding the "there are lions in Cat Creek, Montana" 'fact' to several other articles. Given this behavior it's clear that an edit filter is needed to curb this particular group of sockvandtrolls. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:50, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
  • @King of Hearts: @Reaper Eternal: They're back, and once again gaming the system to get around semiprotection. The edit filter really is needed unless we're going to permamently lock down every article related to lions, Montana, or "cat creek". - The Bushranger One ping only 22:28, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Filter name[edit]

  • Task: Prevent specific vandalism, which appears to have started in June 2012 by User: Repeated vandalism by many meatpuppets on the 1272 article (see page history), and after that page was protected the vandalism has occurred on the 1372 article. Possibilities are prevent these phrases being used in year articles, and prevent all use of certain combinations of phrases.
  • Reason: Better than protection as it could prevent the bad edits, and on a wider range of articles.

- Peter James (talk) 01:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

  • This doesn't appear to have been an issue (at those pages anyway) for some time; can you confirm Peter James? Sam Walton (talk) 12:45, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


  • Task: Filter redirects to pages like Mental retardation.
  • Reason: Very likely an attack page.

- FrankDev (talk) 02:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, I think this could be a good filter, but could cover more than just this term. I'd propose writing up a list of pages that would be offensive if redirected to and go from there. Sam Walton (talk) 19:23, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Language speaker data[edit]

  • Task: Filter the 'speakers' parameter of {{Infobox language}} for changes, similarly to how changes to height and weight in bio boxes are tagged. (If possible, filter 'date' and 'ref' under the same tag: these are all elements of the population figure.) Should apply to editors without advanced permissions.
  • Reason: Population inflation is a chronic problem with our language articles, and isn't easy to detect if you don't see it happen. Although this wouldn't catch changes to the text, vandals and POV warriors normally change the info box as well. This isn't just a problem with IPs, but often with signed-in POV editors. The date may be changed to make the data look recent. If 'date' and 'ref' can be covered without increasing server load significantly, please include them; otherwise 'speakers' is the main problem.

kwami (talk) 00:28, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

XSS Filter detect[edit]

  • Task: Block Internet Explorer 8+ users from saving edits that triggered the XSS Filter (Bug 32013). The XSS Filter transforms periods, bracket, and parentheses to the Number sign. One simple implementation might be ##[^{|}<\n>[\];:*]{5,255}?##
  • Reason: Because IE is extremely sneaky doing this after show change displays everything correctly and devs refuse to send the header to stop the filter. We've had many complaints about this.

Dispenser 06:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Dispenser, do you know if this is still an issue? Sam Walton (talk) 09:07, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, its still an issue 29 months later. This will continue as computers running Internet Explorer 7/8 (End of Life 12 Jan 2016) and have commendable market share. Windows XP has an 18% market share or 1 out of every 6 computers and the highest version of Internet Explorer is 8. Of course WMF could increase interoperability, but they're too distracted by the Web Design Hipsters. — Dispenser 19:52, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


  • Task Modify Special:AbuseFilter/483. It already records users creating their own user page, but it needs to record those creating it with their signature.
  • Reason When he creates a new sock, a prolific sockpuppeteer and WMF-banned editor almost always creates its talk page with his signature. The filter would provide an easy way of locating any socks which CheckUser cannot detect. I understand that the four tildes are not edit filter syntax, but it surely must be extremely easy to add a condition to this filter which pays attention to 2012, the current year in the new text. WilliamH UK (talk) 16:49, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I think it is the reverse. The filter will detect the four tildes but not "2012 (UTC)". Sole Soul (talk) 14:18, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
That is correct. Reaper Eternal (talk) 03:06, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Russian Beatles copyvio[edit]

  • Task:A highly dynamic IP and an occasional named sock account (FreedomRome (talk · contribs) is the latest sock of the master Crazy1980 (talk · contribs)) has been plaguing the OTRS noticeboard and other pages with spurious statements of permission to upload Beatles songs or to link to a Russian copyright-violating host. Typically includes a link to, which I'd rather not have blacklisted the usual way, and statements like "Team of the volunteers of the British Council gives the permission to use these materials", "The Beatles for Cultural Diversity" and all IPs are from Russian ranges. See [25], [26], [27], [28], [29] and so on.
  • Reason: Obviously Apple Records, Paul McCartney, Ringo Starr and the estates of George Harrison and John Lennon will disagree with the idea that somebody at the British Council has given permission to Russians to upload Beatles songs to WP or to link to Russian copyvio sites, and given the incredible persistence of this user, a filter might be helpful - it's been going on for months. No actual uploads that I know of, but the spurious permissions are becoming tiresome. I believe the copyvio host has long since been blacklisted.

- Acroterion (talk) 01:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

@Acroterion: Is this still needed? — This, that and the other (talk) 12:58, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
I haven't seen any activity of this kind in the past few months, so I'd let it drop unless they start up again. Acroterion (talk) 13:35, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Update: they're back, Russian IPs on Jimbo's talkpage, so I'd like to pursue this again. See [30], [31] and [32] and User:Music1245's contributions. Acroterion (talk) 00:43, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Replacing interwikis with ?[edit]

  • Task: Tag the edit when a user unintentionally replaced interwikis with ???, because their computer doesn't support Unicode well. example
  • Reason: The tag will make it easier to fix it.

- Makecat 05:52, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

The problem is more general than interwikis. I've got as far as Preview with a bunch of ?s replacing someone's carefully crafted CJK characters. Unless it is already covered by another filter, I would warn about replacing anything a text editor might zap, perhaps [\U0100-\UFFFFFF]+, by \?+. Can we also trap the substitute character which looks like U+25A1 White Square but may be some other code point? Certes (talk) 13:36, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I'll try to create a filter for this. Unfortunately the Abuse Filter's regex match does not support \u. See [33]. Triplestop x3 05:19, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

This is not a talk page. Please add new requests at the top of this section, not here at the bottom. Thank you!

Completed requests[edit]


We already have Special:AbuseFilter/220 to do basically what you're asking for. Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:49, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
I noticed. It's not catching everything that it should. Here are several diffs it didn't catch on 9 January alone (I can find more, especially for other days): 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 which is a page creation. I've noticed some edits that have the summary "(Tag: Incorrectly formatted external link or image)" but those listed above don't have that. Also, It doesn't seem that the filter is deterring this improper way of inserting files into articles (see Es Bua log 1 and Es Bua log 2, showing an edit going through after the filter caught it). Please correct me if the abuse filters are not supposed to provide deterrence -- I'm learning still about them. Thanks for your help! - tucoxn\talk 08:05, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
It looks like File:|Image:| should be added right before both occurrences of <img. Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:24, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I can't say whether or not that's the correct change but it might be worth a try. It would also be good to upgrade the warning. The notes say "Kill warning, it can be fixed later -P". After correctly implementing the File:|Image:| change would be a good time to try this repair -- or if the warning was re-implemented (Changes) a stronger warning would be better. Thanks! - tucoxn\talk 02:31, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
  • See these diffs (certainly 1 and 2; but also 3, 4, and 5 which might not get caught by this new code) for recent examples of hot-linked images that editors tried to add to articles. Users making constructive edits are still waiting for an edit filter manager or an administrator to implement this change.... Thanks in advance! - tucoxn\talk 01:02, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
  • This is still happening and implementing the filter change would help. See the following diffs (and these come just from today's edits): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. Thanks in advance for your help. - tucoxn\talk 12:46, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
  • @Jackmcbarn:, did you get around to implementing the solution you proposed above? Hard to tell. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 00:29, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
    Yes. Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:09, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Spam links on disambiguation pages[edit]

  • Task:
When unconfirmed users edit disambiguation pages, prevent them from adding any external links (unless a link includes the four letters "wikt").
  • Reason:
I once was editing the OCN disambiguation page, and I noticed that a COI user had added an inappropriate link to the page. (Diff.) And surely similar problems have happened on other disambiguation pages too. Is this a systemic problem? I don't know. Dear all: Please provide your input.
The relevant guideline says that external links (except to Wiktionary) are inappropriate. So you should only allow external links to wikt:example or wiktionary:example or
Unforgettableid (talk) 01:13, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Disambiguation pages are intended to function solely as navigational devices to guide users to the right Wikipedia topic; an external link is no more appropriate on a disambiguation page than it is on a redirect page. Note, however, that any restriction will have to allow links to Wikipedia pages in other languages, as we do allow those. bd2412 T 20:49, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Unforgettableid, BD2412 the filter seems to be working relatively well, it's catching a fair amount of spam. The only issue is with references; some disambiguation pages contain legitimate references, and changing those causes a false flag. I could change the filter to not flag when <ref> tags are in the diff, but it seems some spammers just put their spam link in a reference. I'm not sure what to do about that yet but suggestions are welcome. Sam Walton (talk) 21:09, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Actually, disambiguation pages are not supposed to contain references at all. They are supposed to be more or less like the index in a paper book, listing nothing more than the articles reflecting the terms that the reader might have been looking for, in order to send the reader quickly on their way. Editors adding references to a disambiguation page often do so because the topic is not notable enough to merit an article (or be mentioned in another article), and therefore should not be in the encyclopedia at all. bd2412 T 21:18, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • This is true. I saw this edit and thought surname pages, which often contain a reference or two about the surname, might give false flags. That said, they should be tagged with the surname template not disambiguation and so generally won't be an issue. I've started a warning message at MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning-EL-in-disambiguation. Let me know what you think and feel free to make changes. Sam Walton (talk) 21:56, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes check.svg Done Filter set up to warn & tag. Sam Walton (talk) 20:33, 2 February 2015 (UTC) message[edit]

  • Task: Give the filter a more specific reason as to why the link is disallowed.
  • Reason: A lot of users ending up posting FP reports because they have no idea what happened.

Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:29, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

@Jackmcbarn: Does this still need addressing? Sam Walton (talk) 17:55, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
No, it's since been done. Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Joy Richard Preuss[edit]

  • Task: Prevent edits containing the name “Joy Richard Preuss” and this persons bank account number (which can be seen in the [now-oversighted] edit:
  • Reason: Joy Richard Preuss is an, apparently mentally ill, aspiring something that spams the web with promotional nonsense (and his/her bank account information). We have a filter that prevents this on dawiki, which has been very successful at stopping him/her, but it appears that he/she has started spamming enwiki as well. Also, perhaps the edits he/she has made that contains his/her bank account information should be hidden, despite it being quite public already (it's all over the web due to the aforementioned spam). --Cgtdk (talk) 00:00, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Special:AbuseFilter/534. Log only for now. Someguy1221 (talk) 11:27, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Cgtdk, have you found any more edits recently? Over the last year I have requested oversight of all the ones I could find that give away personal information, although it's hard to find them in article histories (most get reverted quickly by other editors). There was a big batch which Someguy1221 very helpfully dealt with in the last day or two. bobrayner (talk) 13:34, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
I just rolled back a JRP edit, but it did not contain any sensitive information. Other than that and the one I posted in my original request, I have not seen any recently. --Cgtdk (talk) 13:46, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Edit filter is active. Sam Walton (talk) 18:22, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Denied requests[edit]

Extend filter 554 to Draft[edit]

  • Task: In filter 554 change "article_namespace" to cover both 0 and 118 (draft)
  • Reason: Spam links are inserted indirectly to mainspace after page is moved. It's also a security issue: Move article to draft, add spam links, move back. - Magioladitis (talk) 12:00, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
I would like also to ping @Kww: for this one. pi -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:04, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm currently testing for namespace 118 hits with my test filter. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:42, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Od Mishehu, did you get anywhere with this? Sam Walton (talk) 12:21, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm getting no hits. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:27, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
In that case I'll mark this X mark.svg Not done. Sam Walton (talk) 20:31, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Bold headings[edit]

  • Task: Tag edits that contain new bold headings, like this:
=='''Some heading'''==
  • Reason: For some reason, I've noticed spam pages tend to do this a lot.

- (talk) 19:08, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done I'd want to see some proof that this was correlated with spam pages, that aside this is a MOS issue and not suitable for an edit filter. Sam Walton (talk) 21:48, 24 January 2015 (UTC)


  • Task: Tag edits where all or most page content is removed and replaced by different content.
  • Reason: To flag up possible cases of "hijacking", where genuine articles are replaced by unrelated promotional material, such as this or this: Noyster (talk), 22:22, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
    Agree, and this should operate in all namespaces - example. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:10, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
    It seems impractical - it's possible to filter for the c\total length of all modified lines; however, as far as can tell, there's no way to chjeck if the line was changed completely, or just a typo fix occured. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:30, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
    X mark.svg Not done Musik Animal and I discussed this briefly on IRC and couldn't figure any way to check this reliably without a ton of false flags either. Sam Walton (talk) 21:44, 24 January 2015 (UTC)