Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested/Archive 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Linguist111 troll

- Linguist Moi? Moi. 19:39, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Linguist111 As visible by my bot's reports ([1], [2]), it's already at Special:AbuseFilter/579. Dat GuyTalkContribs 15:50, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 Done Actively working on this — MusikAnimal talk 19:01, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
{{archive now}} — MusikAnimal talk 17:01, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Suix/Woomoo/Dead rats

  • Task: Tags all new users that have the words "th3", "woomoo", "dead rats" "rats dead" "xisu", "suix", "siux", "xius" and/or other similar strings to "suix" in their usernames, and tags the insertion of "woomoo", "dead rats" and "rats dead" into articles.
  • Reason: A user, The Suix, has been abusing multiple vandalism/spam-only accounts, all with similar usernames (see sockpuppet category), and, among other things, replacing article content with an advertisement for a certain "Woomoo" company ([3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]...).

- Linguist Moi? Moi. 16:45, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

@Linguist111: Popped onto Special:AbuseFilter/773. I'm just checking the usernames at the moment, which will likely move to another filter username tagging filter if there's enough - do you have any more recent examples of the actual disruption? -- samtar talk or stalk 15:08, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
@Samtar: Will have a look for more. Linguist Moi? Moi. 15:44, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Triggered filter, Triggered filter, Triggered filter, Triggered filter, Spam and blanking, Spam and blanking, Spam and blanking... Linguist Moi? Moi. 15:53, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
I had a few variations of "suix" in filter 102, but they were too easily circumvented. As an alternative, since almost all accounts created articles containing "WOOMOO INC.", a filter looking for some variation of wo{2,}mo{2,} inc, in articles created by new accounts might be more effective. N.B. I know very little regex, so I won't be attempting this myself. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:06, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
@DoRD: I was hoping to try to nail down some patterns to add to 102 :/ good idea for the actual disruption though - if we can't tag the accounts getting the actual abuse would be useful. @Linguist111: thank you for the examples, very helpful :) -- samtar talk or stalk 16:23, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Actually if it's mainly article creations, an addition to the Title Blacklist may be more suitable here? -- samtar talk or stalk 16:29, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
TBL addition requested - I'll continue to log at 773 to see if we can add some patterns to 102 -- samtar talk or stalk 16:34, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Actually, they were created under all sorts of titles, so I don't think that the TBL will work, either. Also, other pages were vandalized with the same content as in the diffs above. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:49, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I think a filter for "Woomoo" in usernames and in articles would suffice for the most part. There have been a number of articles created by the user with "Woomoo" in the titles, some of which have been salted. Linguist Moi? Moi. 16:56, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

 Filter created That can be disallowed via the blacklist - disallowing a couple of phrases at 808 as its pretty clear they're going to stick around for a while -- samtar talk or stalk 18:25, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

@Samtar and DoRD: Have new strings been added to the filter? I tried to ask here if some new strings the vandal is using had been added but the filter disallowed it. I'm assuming it's because those strings have already been added? Linguist Moi? Moi. 20:24, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
@Linguist111: Fixed the false positive which prevented you making that edit - I have been updating the filter as they progress. #wikipedia-en-abuse-log connect is keeping an eye on it -- samtar talk or stalk 20:26, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
@Samtar: Can "Xoono" and "Rats!" be added if they haven't been already? Linguist Moi? Moi. 20:27, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 Waaaay ahead of you :) -- samtar talk or stalk 20:32, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
@Samtar: Thanks. Has the main string (can't write it because the filter will disallow me) been title-blacklisted? This sock just created two articles with the title. Linguist Moi? Moi. 21:23, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Which main string Linguist111? You can now type things like XoonoStudio etc -- samtar talk or stalk 21:34, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
@Samtar: Thanks. I meant Woomoo. Linguist Moi? Moi. 21:36, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Has "dead rats" been added to the username filter? User has been rapidly creating socks with this string recently (see sock investigation). Also, can edit summaries containing "dead rats" be disallowed? Linguist Moi? Moi. 15:01, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Edit summaries were being checked but I had removed that - will re-add. As for the username I've requested the addition -- samtar talk or stalk 09:44, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

User now has taken to using 'creative' spellings of rat to get around the edit summary filter. See Special:Contributions/I just added sugar. Edits are revdelled, but as you recently gained the bit (gratz!), you should be able to see what I mean. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 21:11, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
{{archive now}} — MusikAnimal talk 17:01, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

poop

  • Task: Should prevent IPs and vandals from inserting the word inside the template Infobox person, infobox school and in the lead section of the page. Rival school students target other school pages after some school level sports competition.
  • Reason: I have reverted too much insertion of this word especially in BLPs of female popstars and female sportsperson, politicians, talk show hosts. Sometimes the insertion is mixed up with other words: For example "Mountain" will be changed to "Mountainpoop" or "Mountpoopain". And there is obvious name change.

- Marvellous Spider-Man 16:54, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@Marvellous Spider-Man: Could you provide two or three diffs of this disruption to test against? I'll look to temporarily add it to 614 -- samtar talk or stalk 17:24, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Maybe this request won't work as sometimes they create variation as this and this. I went through my 200 huggle edits, and couldn't find the exact edits. I know I have seen many such edits. The edits are extremely vulgar, due to which other huggle users revert before me. I click revert to get the message, "There are some newer edits". As I clicked revert button in huggle window, I sometimes feel I reverted it, but the revert was already made by somebody else. --Marvellous Spider-Man 17:52, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
We do already have a dedicated poop blocking filter, Filter 46, so I expect the issue is only with poop as part of other words, poo, and other variations. -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:57, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
@Samtar: This time I didn't revert just to show the differences. see this. Marvellous Spider-Man 17:59, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
@Zzuuzz: I think expanding on that filter may be a good idea, I'm not 100% sure how .*'s could be used in this filter (or if they even should be) - would welcome any suggestions -- samtar talk or stalk 18:15, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, it looks quite complicated to fit in, and without FPs. Perhaps Filter 189 (and 39) could be used? Just a sideways thought. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:24, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
If you plan on making any changes to the poop filter I highly recommend using a third-party tool such as debuggex so that you can create test cases, etc. Looking for words containg "poop" might work but I don't think you'll be able to get away with just "poo" (Winnie-the-poo, poodle, harpoon, pool, etc). This would work only under some circumstances such as \bpoo poo\b, or the like, but you still have Poo Poo Point, Poo poo platter (common misspelling), etc. Given the age of the poop filter I suspect it has undergone significant tweaking to be well-rounded while still being accurate — MusikAnimal talk 15:39, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
@Samtar and MusikAnimal: The existing filter should have blocked this edit. I'm not sure why it didn't. Kaldari (talk) 21:06, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
The filter evidently looks for poop by itself or followed by a range of possibilities, which does not include "tastic" [11]. This seems like an edge case, but there are some more common things like POOPIE where the IE should be detected — MusikAnimal talk 21:15, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm also not convinced the backreferencing is working as expected — MusikAnimal talk 21:27, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
You're right, I was testing locally and it actually got blocked by a different filter. My suggestion would be to add "\bPOOP" to a filter that just tags (rather than blocks) edits. Kaldari (talk) 22:39, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done -- samtar talk or stalk 08:29, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

{{archive now}} — MusikAnimal talk 17:01, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

No emoji's in edit summary

  • Task: Disallow emoji's in edit summaries. Example, All summaries - all users
  • Reason: Seems more disruptive and unnecesary than useful or needed.

- - Mlpearc (open channel) 01:01, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

  • This probably needs some community discussion, but I broadly support this sort of filter. To reduce the cost of such a filter, it should be restricted to editors who are either not autoconfirmed or perhaps not extendedconfirmed. ~ Rob13Talk 06:35, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, that would definitely need a community discussion, since this would amount to a ban on something that is not currently prohibited. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:21, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Seconding a support of this sort of filter, and seconding requiring a discussion -- samtar talk or stalk 17:00, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  • @Mlpearc: The ever present question of Wikipedia; where the heck do I ask that?? I'd say WP:VPP (as I guess it'll be kinda policy based?) or WP:VPT (I swear there was a similar conversation recently about emoji's in usernames?) -- samtar talk or stalk 18:00, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  • This definitely requires community approval, and I oppose it. What is the problem with emoji in edit summaries? Emoji are a legitimate means of textual communication, even if some don't like them. BethNaught (talk) 17:59, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
@BethNaught: Just for the record, I do like emoji's and use them all the time, on IRC, talk page discussions and texting, I do have issues when used in edit summaries (which are supposed to describe an edit not how you feel, that's what talk pages are for) and I don't like them in usernames either, but I'll bite my tongue on that for now. - Mlpearc (open channel) 18:15, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I opened a discussion here Requested edit filter No emoji's in edit summaries. - Mlpearc (open channel) 18:26, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

  • There could be legitimate uses of these, so I oppose a blanket restriction on these. Usernames could contain these characters and why would we need to say block Reply to User:Name(emoji) ? — xaosflux Talk 19:53, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 Denied due to the related discussion at VPP being closed with a consensus to not allow a filter of this sort -- samtar talk or stalk 19:45, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
{{archive now}} — MusikAnimal talk 17:01, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Daryl Falcunitin

  • Task: Tag all new users whose usernames contain the string "Falcunitin", perhaps also if they also contain the strings "Yaye", "Yays", or "Daryl".
  • Reason: To detect sockpuppets of Yaysmay15, who has been an active vandal in Philippines topics and current event lists which are actively edited by IPs, thus semiprotection is undesirable. - Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:10, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
    Running on my test filter for the time being to assess what we're dealing with, then we can update Special:AbuseFilter/579 accordingly — MusikAnimal talk 17:45, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
     Denied Sorry, this never got anywhere. Infrequent, and inconsistent. We will have to explore other means — MusikAnimal talk 19:05, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
    Thanks anyway. He was very active for a while but seems to have given up. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:38, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
    {{archive now}} — MusikAnimal talk 17:00, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

"Derp" Spamming

  • Task: Ip Hopping and vandalism See This and other one, another one
  • Reason: To prevent vandalism and would be added possible vandalism tags and warning.

- ~ Junior5a (Talk) Cont 17:14, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Y Done what we can do — MusikAnimal talk 16:54, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
{{archive now}} — MusikAnimal talk 20:17, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

The "Knot" that username filterer

  • Task: Revers vandalism made on a userpage. it affects people who are not that username.
  • Reason: To prevent the vandalism on userpages made by other people

- Brynda1231 [Talk Page] [Contribs] 05:09, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

@Brynda1231: Hi there, thanks for making a filter request. I'm having some trouble trying to understand what exactly it is you'd like the filter to do - to help us understand, could you give us a step by step of what the filter would do? For example:
1. Look for unconfirmed users editing userpages
2. Check if their username is "Example"
3. Log their edit
-- samtar talk or stalk 09:36, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
1. Looks for possible vandalism
2. Checks to make sure if it is not that username associated with the userpage after the "USER:" part.
3. If it is not the associated username, reverts it to the last non-vandalism version
If the editor matches the title, don't revert, but highlight syntax errors. --Brynda1231 [Talk Page] [Contribs] 16:02, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
@Brynda1231: The edit filter is only really capable of catching very basic vandalism. Also, most obvious vandalism, including that on user pages, already gets reverted by Cluebot NG. Omni Flames (talk) 04:28, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Cluebot NG does not work on user pages. Would be nice if it did. Anyway filter 803 seems to have already greatly reduced vandalism by IP's and new users to userpages. Sro23 (talk) 19:33, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
N Denied per above, and we now have Special:AbuseFilter/803 which significantly cuts out user page vandalism — MusikAnimal talk 16:56, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
{{archive now}} — MusikAnimal talk 20:03, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Bee Movie script

  • Task: Disallows edits that add a significant portion of the script from the "Bee Movie". The script is quite long, so it may be better to check for just a few specific lines from the script instead.
  • Reason: Adding or replacing content with the Bee Movie script (it's become a trend recently) is an irritating, but easy to detect form of vandalism. The edit filter should disallow the edit because it's not only simple vandalism, but requires a RevDel, as it's a copyright violation.

- Sunmist (talk) 21:59, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

@Sunmist: Could you provide some example diffs? — MusikAnimal talk 19:02, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
@MusikAnimal: Yes. Here's the cases I've found so far: 750159776, 751872212, 726104850, 747640859, 721862439. Sunmist (talk) 19:35, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Still active today, see [12] CrowCaw 19:30, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Testing at Special:AbuseFilter/773 -- samtar talk or stalk 19:34, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Also of note, a page that seems to be a forum for this. Haven't seen any of the others, but.... [13] CrowCaw 19:38, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
I worry about the collective sanity of internet users -- samtar talk or stalk 19:39, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Y Done at 813 (private) -- samtar talk or stalk 15:01, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

@Samtar: See [14] for them adapting... CrowCaw 18:38, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

@Crow: I believe it actually was caught, but the filter isn't set to disallow yet. I asked Samtar if it could be changed as I don't see any false positives. Dat GuyTalkContribs 18:46, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Ah makes sense, thanks! CrowCaw 18:48, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
{{archive now}} — MusikAnimal talk 05:39, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Dank Memes

  • Task: Filter edits containing "dank memes"
  • Reason: There's widespread vandalism on WP with this term, an example being [15] Drewmutt (talk) 01:49, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Just popped it on Special:AbuseFilter/1 to see what level of disruption we're getting - to be fair this could be added to one of the many vandalism filters and wouldn't need it's own :) -- Samtar talk · contribs 08:33, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 Done Added to Special:AbuseFilter/614, assuming Samtar hasn't already added it to another filter — MusikAnimal talk 13:16, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Nope, cheers MA :) -- Samtar talk · contribs 15:00, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Nigerian phone number spamming

  • Task: Could we please have a filter for the word "contact" (case insensitive), followed by whitespace and/or a colon, followed by 11 numeric digits.
  • Reason: An IP-hopping spammer has been adding "Contact" followed by a phone number to many Nigerian university articles, e.g. [16], [17]. User:Materialscientist tells me "This is an LTA case, and some socks are here. All edits come from the 197.210.0.0/16 range, which is busy, but we might consider blocking it. The added phone numbers vary." Looking at the sock contributions, they do indeed vary over time, e.g. [18]. But they all seem to start with "contact", and all seem to end with an 11-digit Nigerian phone number. Thanks, Wikishovel (talk) 16:49, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
     Done I've added both of the above phone numbers and some special handling for "Contact: [number]" to Special:AbuseFilter/793 — MusikAnimal talk 17:54, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick turnaround! Wikishovel (talk) 18:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Aaron j christopher sock

  • Task: An extremely active sock is repeatedly creating articles about himself. The pages range from regular articles to his current style of complex userpage-looking pages with the article text in an infobox. (See [19], [20], [21] for examples). Currently the text used is always the same, so an edit filter on some of the strings, song titles, imdb page, etc, set to disallow (eventually) would slow him down. His links indicate he's young so it shouldn't take much to make him lose interest.
  • Reason: To stop a very active sock (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aaron j christopher 101/Archive) whose ip range appears to change such that a rangeblock won't work. See the histories of the ones I linked: he removes the CSD's using his current IP.

- CrowCaw 23:52, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

@Crow: Coincidentally, I drafted up some code for this for fun... I'll send the email to the mailing list. Dat GuyTalkContribs 14:55, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Received and reviewing -- samtar talk or stalk 16:22, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 Testing at Filter 2 -- samtar talk or stalk 16:48, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, any way I can see the code for this one, not having the sorcery and all? I may be able to help tweak the regex if/when he adapts, since this is one on my search list. CrowCaw 18:20, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
It appears this is a little bit more sophisticated, so I've created Special:AbuseFilter/811. Crow we can chat via the mailing list or email, but I'll be keeping an eye on this filter and will tweak accordingly — MusikAnimal talk 18:53, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Rog CrowCaw 19:01, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Will go ahead and mark as  Done — MusikAnimal talk 19:53, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Deez nuts

  • Task: Filter edits containing "deez nuts"
  • Reason: Seeing a lot of widespread vandalism with this phrase. An example: [23] Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 03:48, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
I'd support this filter... obnoxious meme akin to the Harambe stuff. There is Deez nuts (disambig page) articles that may have legit deez nuts-related edits. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:06, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
This should have been stopped by Special:AbuseFilter/614. Investigating... — MusikAnimal talk 21:28, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 Fixed Indeed, there was a breaking change to the filter four days ago. This has been fixed — MusikAnimal talk 21:31, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

End date present

  • Task: Filter edits changing (1) {{end date|YYYY|MM|DD}} to {{end date|present}}, (2) {{end date|YYYY|MM|DD}} to {{end date|YYYY|MM|DD}} present and (3) {{start date|YYYY|MM|DD}} to {{start date|YYYY|MM|DD}} present
  • Reason: Discovered long term abuse by an IP range. Range appears too active for rangeblock. Habit of vandal is to change end date of TV shows to "present". Example edits: [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32]. Known IP ranges: 172.56.30.*; 172.56.31.* but other IPs outside range have made these edits. See User:EvergreenFir/socks#End_date_show_vandal_-_Southwest.2C_CA for table of IPs and dates of vandalism. RegEx seems easy at first glance, especially if infobox parameters are included. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:32, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
    I've hijacked an old unused, but similar filter for this. Testing at Special:AbuseFilter/777 — MusikAnimal talk 21:52, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
@MusikAnimal: Appears to be working! [33] and [34] EvergreenFir (talk) 17:27, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
@EvergreenFir: That second one I think is a false positive, but I think I've fixed the regex. So your plan is to monitor this filter, not disallow, correct? I say let's test it for a while, and if we see there are unique ranges (like the ones you've already identified), disallowing might be feasible — MusikAnimal talk 18:21, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
@MusikAnimal: Sounds good to me! I've added it to my monitor list. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:06, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Underwear fetishist talkpage vandal

  • Task: Prevent IP-hopping editor from continuing long-term disruption at fetishism-related talkpages.
  • Reason: IP-hopper who has posted musings on pages like Talk:Underwear fetishism, Talk:Jeggings, Talk:Spandex fetishism and others. See IPs noted here [35]. The same editor has also obsessively edited Talk:List of premodern combat weapons with the same thing over and over.This has been going on for years, and it seems like a fairly simple modification to an existing filter. Acroterion (talk) 03:48, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
    Testing at Special:AbuseFilter/637. At quick glance it seems this disruption comes in short, infrequent spurts. That may be a problem, but the filter should at least give us an idea of what we're dealing with. I'm not aware of an existing filter that could block/log these types of edits in particular — MusikAnimal talk 03:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
    For now I'm going to mark this as  Denied. It's possible I'm missing something, but after two weeks we still haven't gotten any hits. If there were an existing filter we could add this to then it would be less of a problem, but I don't think there is. The behaviour is very specific, such that I'm less comfortable leaving a dedicated filter running for an extended period of time. If disruption resumes let me know and we'll get it going again! — MusikAnimal talk 20:34, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

"Asshole"

Please add the word "Asshole" for the abusefilter, because this word can't be used anyways constructive. --Gambler1478 (talk) 10:25, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

N Denied It already exists as Special:AbuseFilter/12, Special:AbuseFilter/380, and probably a few more. The problem is that any bad word (even "fuck") can be used constructively, as in an article about bad words or when quoting someone. Therefore we place limits on the specific circumstances of the use to limit false positives. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:28, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

New account orphan tagging

  • Task: Detect non-confirmed accounts removing {{New unreviewed article}} and replacing with {{orphan}}, with any parameters, in a single edit. (e.g. [36])
  • Reason: There is a quite active sockfarm (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PlikoraT) whose telltale behaviours include having one throwaway account create an article in draft space with a handful of edits, and within a few days a second account copies and pastes same article in mainspace, though sometimes it's an older revision of the draft. Then, a third account tags the article as an orphan; in the past this has made an entry in the patrol log but that is not consistent. See the mangled history of Adrok Group and Draft:Adrok for a recent example. Reviewing the contributions of the three accounts often reveals more mangled drafts, which in turn reveal more sock accounts, but this tag would be useful for detecting future abuse. - Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:35, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
    Testing at Special:AbuseFilter/2 — MusikAnimal talk 08:57, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
    20 days and no hits, so  Denied for now. @Ivanvector: If this resumes let me know and we'll get it going again! — MusikAnimal talk 21:23, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
    Thanks, I haven't seen any new activity either. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:24, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

AnnalesSchool

  • Task: Disallow the posting of "I would like to log my dissatisfaction with the general bias of this article held ransom by a clique of Greek editors who are misleading the general public into believing that it was a great Greek victory when in fact, the Greek army failed, in the end, to defeat the Italians and on April 22, were forced to sign a formal surrender document to General Geloso of the Italian 11th Army. The fact that the Greeks surrendered to the Italians should be clearly spelled out. It is neither an opinion nor an argument, but simply a fact that should be included to maintain the credibility of this dubious and substandard article.", or any of the sentences involved, due to a large number of sockpuppets of AnnalesSchool posting it.
  • Reason: Continuous vandalism to MILHIST talk page, and other obscure MILHIST pages that may not be corrected for some time due to low amount of watchers. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 07:48, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Drumpf

Car infobox vandal

  • Task: Prevent IP editors from making large changes to car infoboxes
  • Reason: A Korean editor is making many unconstructive edits to automotive articles, which may not be easily noticed by those with limited automotive knowledge. Their editing has also led to several requests for protection on articles targeted such as Nissan Armada and Infiniti QX56. WNYY98 (talk) 07:41, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

(unexplained) numerical changes

I see often edits where the only change is a number (whether it is a year, amount of money, boiling point, etc.) without a proper explanation. I would expect it to be worth to check for such changes, as often plain numbers are vandalism prone (and, for years, possibly a BLP concern), and that such edits need extra attention. I only don't know (yet) how to construct such a filter .. is this something that we could come up with? (I am considering to regex out all '\d' and all '!\d' from both sides of a diff, and then have (left\d != right\d) && (left!\d == right!\d) as check ..). --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:59, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Cat Creek Lion filter

cuck

  • Task: Filter based on the term "cuck"
  • Reason: Seeing a lot of abuse of this term, can't think of a lot of false positive cases. Example: [38] Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 22:21, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • The test went really well, filter 384 is now live with this addition. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:41, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

User space indexing

  • Task: To tag any edit that causes a page in user space to be indexed for search engines, either by adding the magic word __INDEX__ or its wrapper template, {{INDEX}}. This adds the page to Category:Indexed pages.
  • Reason: User space is "noindexed" by default. There are some legitimate reasons for editors to override this (see this discussion), but approximately 450 formerly indexed pages in user space were found to contain promotional or self-publicising content, frequently couched as draft articles and thus bypassing the vetting that would occur if transferred to mainspace. See, for example, this or this. Others were normal userpages containing an apparently random collection of magic words, such as this: Noyster (talk), 14:37, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support this, as a good way to catch low-flying promotional content. CrowCaw 00:01, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Y Done at 840. I'll monitor and start tagging once I see it's working effectively — MusikAnimal talk 18:00, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Unofficial sports transaction

  • Task: Disallow IPs from changing a player's team in sports infoboxes when templates based off of Template:Current sports transaction are on an article.
  • Reason: So many sports-related articles are protected due to IPs changing the team before a trade/signing is made official by the team/league after it is announced by sports journalists WNYY98 (talk) 23:39, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
    Testing at 841. This will need tweaking, and no promises that it will be sufficiently accurate such that we could set it to disallow. Infoboxes are one thing but changing the team in the lead or body of the article is going to be much more difficult to detect. I think we will need to seek broader input before disallowing anyway, but let's wait and see if this is even feasible. My gut instinct is that this sort of filter might be more on the expensive side, so if this does work out, we might consider only enabling it during the "trading season" or whatever, assuming that's a thing — MusikAnimal talk 18:53, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
    N Denied Due to technical limitations I don't think I can get this to be 100% accurate, so I'm afraid disallowing is out of the question. Warnings would only stop the editors some of the time, and even then we might be warning them when they aren't actually even changing the team. Finally, we need to scan the whole article text for {{current sports transaction}} which is not so great for larger articles. All things considered I think page protection is probably the best route, as undesirable as it may be. Sorry! — MusikAnimal talk 01:40, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Sarah Paulson

  • Task: Keep IP editors from adding the words "Lily Rabe" to the Sarah Paulson article.
  • Reason: IP editors come back every few weeks to the Sarah Paulson article and add a relationship with Lily Rabe which, from what I can tell, has never existed or, more precisely, has never been reported. These edits are don't occur every day, so that's why I'm not looking for full protection. But the IP is persistent. †dismas†|(talk) 02:10, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Deferred Wrong venue I suggest requesting protection at WP:RPP per WP:BLP. Edit filters shouldn't be used to watch certain pages.--Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 17:19, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
I guess I misunderstood the goal of edit filters. I, and the rest of the editors that watch the article, will just have to deal with the vandalism. Thanks for the explanation. †dismas†|(talk) 17:42, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
@Dismas: This might not have to be deferred. Is it widespread across more than one page? Dat GuyTalkContribs 18:05, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
@DatGuy: Not that I'm aware. I only have the Paulson and Rabe articles on my watchlist. I don't know where else this IP's edit could possibly be put in other than those two articles. †dismas†|(talk) 21:39, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree an edit filter does not seem like the best solution in this case. However given the infrequent but persistent disruption this article seems like a prime candidate for pending-changes protection, so I've added it. This won't stop the vandalism but it will make it invisible to most readers — MusikAnimal talk 01:52, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Slight adjustment to Special:AbuseFilter/249

  • Task: Slightly adjust filter 249 to not affect confirmed users.
  • Reason: I saw a confirmed user using Twinkle, and because many of the edit summaries of their edits contained "Reverted", their edits were tagged as "Non-autoconfirmed user rapidly reverting edits" even though they are confirmed (see [39]). —MRD2014 📞 What I've done 12:51, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
    Y Done — MusikAnimal talk 00:40, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

dat boi

  • Task: Filter out edits containing "dat boi"
  • Reason: Seeing it more and more in destructive edits. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 02:22, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Consider adding this to nonsense filter, but exempt confirmed editors from the filter due to the fact it could be used in a valid way. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 13:52, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
@Zppix: I'm still a bit of an EF novice but if there's a way to do that, I'm on board. Also, fun fact, I found these.. [40] [41] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drewmutt (talk • contribs)
Testing... just to see how often this happens. There are several existing filters we can merge it into — MusikAnimal talk 07:21, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Y Done Added to Special:AbuseFilter/614 — MusikAnimal talk 19:48, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

VHS vandal filter

  • Task: Disallow VHS vandal edits (changing of dates in infoboxes and cleanup templates, changing images to the VHS logo, and the "how to become a VHS president" copypasta).
  • Reason: Long-term abuser. When their main IPv6 range was blocked for three months due to use by another vandal, they started creating vandalism-only accounts. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 03:04, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
@MusikAnimal: may say otherwise but I think a better venue will be WP:SPI or WP:AIV. However, maybe the "copypasta" could be put into a filter. @KATMAKROFAN: Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 13:43, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
No, this isn't suited to SPI/AIV -- Samtar talk · contribs 15:11, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
@KATMAKROFAN: could you link to a couple of examples of their edits which should be disallowed? We need a pattern to work on -- Samtar talk · contribs 15:11, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
All of the contributions of the sock I linked to (User:BornIn1922). KATMAKROFAN (talk) 15:50, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Signature changing IP

  • Task: prohibit IPs from editing other user's signatures/comments (or something of this sort), intended for an IP hopper I've been dealing with for some time
  • Reason: I've been dealing with an IP address for quite some time now. They will usually go to a former IP of there's talk page and change my signature to something obscene.

IP's include the following:

I initially requested a range block of these IPs at ANI; Edgar181 said a range block would have too much collateral damage and suggested I bring this here. JudgeRM (talk to me) 17:40, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Due to the freedom users have in formatting their signatures, it's very tricky to definitively say someone is maliciously modifying it. Here this person is only disrupting their own talk page. While it is obscene, offensive, and targeted towards you, it is very common. I can't count how many times it's happened to me! Fortunately the visibility of such talk pages are comparatively low, and any patroller (likely the only people who would see the talk page) are going to know the IP was meddling with the signature. For this reason I'm not sure the expense of a filter is worth the benefit in this case — MusikAnimal talk 22:16, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
What I'm suprize dabout isn't that the user is technically able to remove what (s)he's removing, but the addition of these bad words should generally be disallowed even in the User talk: namespace. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:38, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Disallowing offensive language across user talk (maybe all talk?) pages seems more worthwhile and less prone to error, however I wonder why such a filter hasn't been implemented yet already. We have a few that check certain talk pages, e.g. admins and CheckUsers who are frequently harassed. If we wanted we could expand Special:AbuseFilter/380 or 384 to check user talk, but maybe we should seek broader input first — MusikAnimal talk 18:59, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Considering Wikipedia isn't censored I doubt this filter would comply with that guideline/policy. MusikAnimal Od Mishehu Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 13:48, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't censored, but we do disallow use of many bad words in many contexts by anons and new users, simply because they are almost always abused by them. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:17, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Yeah... WP:CENSORED is about content, transparency, etc. Personal attacks, impersonation, and general disruption on talk pages are not acceptable. Zippx does have a point that while we do prevent bad language in articles, unconfirmed users might make edit requests or otherwise discuss legitimate content that contains offensive language. Maybe that's why the "bad word" filters aren't being applied to the talk namespaces. I would argue however profanity in the user talk namespace is most likely going to be personal attacks of sorts and not related to content. Anyway, I'm going to go ahead and mark this one as N Denied since I don't think the original request (disallow changing of signatures) is possible. If we want to extend some of the various "bad word" filters to user talk I think we should first discuss at WP:EFN, perhaps consulting the authors of those filters who may have intentionally excluded user talk — MusikAnimal talk 18:01, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Detecting potential undisclosed paid editing

  • Task: Log new articles by new users that bear hallmarks of undisclosed paid editing. Examples (all deleted): [42] [43] [44] [45] [46]
  • Reason: Currently our detection of spammy articles created by throwaway accounts relies on chance and often on CU to find other accounts and articles. e.g. Orangemoody, HemantDas34, Brilbluterin. I'd like to know whether we can detect and log edits similar to those I've linked above, that have certain hallmarks of undisclosed paid editing and are made by new users to new articles. There was previous discussion about general things we might be able to detect back in 2015 and I have some specific criteria that I would be interested to test and evaluate the rate of false positives. Specifying the criteria here would seemingly defeat the object... Is this a suitable use for the edit filter? SmartSE (talk) 00:32, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
@Smartse: I could only see this causing a lot of false positives however, maybe a few keywords could be added to COI filter (or if theres already a paid filter that would work too). Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 13:46, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
@Zppix: There would undoubtedly be false positives, which is why I'd only be interested in logging edits to get an idea of the proportion that are suspicious. If it's 90% FPs then it would obviously be of no use, but if it's closer to 50% that would still be a good starting point for patrolling. The COI filter is very crude (just checking for the inclusion of usernames in edits) and serves a different function. There is no EF that attempts to find paid editing at present. SmartSE (talk) 14:30, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
@Smartse: I'm going to need more than hallmarks of undisclosed paid editing to even begin testing this.. Looking at the above examples show no real pattern I could work with. Could you email us at wikipedia-en-editfilters@lists.wikimedia.org with some more specific patterns? -- Samtar talk · contribs 15:04, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Agreed, taking this to the mailing list with some specifics might be best. I did want to share one specific filter with you, Smartse, that was built to detect paid editing: Special:AbuseFilter/829. This does not detect paid editing in the way you suggest, however. It also regularly receives false positives, so you might have to dig through the log to find the legitimate hits, but they are there :) — MusikAnimal talk 18:20, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
@Samtar and MusikAnimal: Email sent. SmartSE (talk) 14:54, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Anti-BLP profaning filter

  • Task: A filter that checks for vandal words like "gay" penis" "b*tch" "c*nt" and other words typically used in vandalism attacks against BLP. Would be helpful it were public logs so it could be monitored by vandal police.
  • Reason: In my work as PCR, RCP and STiki, I have come across numerous vandal edits that employed the above trigger words. An edit filter could flag edits to BLPs containing them so reversion could occur faster. Thanks L3X1 (distant write) 16:46, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
@L3X1: Already covered in 384 (log) -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 16:48, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for showing me that, I should have guessed that one existed due to how old the project is. Is there a list of all abuse filters somewhere? I couldn't find one on WP:EFD.L3X1 (distant write) 16:52, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure non-EFMs can see Special:AbuseFilter...? -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 16:54, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
I can view it, thanks for helping me :) L3X1 (distant write) 16:57, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
No worries, thank you for your help in keeping Wikipedia vandalism free! -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 16:58, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

New users placing DISPLAYTITLE

As I'm going through Category:Pages with disallowed DISPLAYTITLE modifications I'm noticing that several are users adding DISPLAYTITLE in an attempt to move the page. Could we have a filter catch and log new users adding DISPLAYTITLE? It doesn't help that the category doesn't separate pages by namespace. — Train2104 (t • c) 22:53, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Note the category text says "This search only displays articles in the category". The resulting page can also be used to choose other namespaces. I used to empty the category of articles every few days but haven't done so for a while. Many DISPLAYTITLE attempts to move an article have inappropriate names and shouldn't be moved. The good ones can be moved by more experienced editors checking articles in the category (I will probably soon get back to it). I don't think there is much point in using resources on an edit filter. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:08, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Rajkumar Mishra

  • Task: What is the filter supposed to do? To what pages and editors does it apply?

Prevent creation of any article that includes the name "Rajkumar Mishra" and also prevent the addition of the name to articles.

  • Reason: Why is the filter needed? First Light (talk) 12:11, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Multiple sock accounts keep recreating various versions of "Rajkumar Mishra" articles. For details see: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Socking.2C_COI.2C_repeated_article_creation.2Fdeletion This has been going on even before this most recent spate of spamming/disruption. They also keep adding the name to numerous Indian film articles, replacing the names of legitimate and even famous actors. As far as I know, there is no notable person with this name, so false positives may be quite unlikely. An administrator at WP:ANI suggested I come here to make this request. First Light (talk) 12:11, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

This looks to me like an issue for MediaWiki:Titleblacklist, not for here. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:16, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
When he's not creating new articles, he spams articles with his name, Rajkumar Mishra. For 15 March, we have multiple users doing that. Some days it's been more than this. He shows no signs of letting up. He understands how to create new and countless user accounts, edits from IPs, and is relentless. Today's tally, not his best day by far, probably average:
Any other solutions would be appreciated.
First Light (talk) 00:05, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Detect multiple editors editing the same page

  • Task: To create a new tag for 2+ new editors editing on the same article or draft.
  • Reason: This would be exceedingly helpful for sock-hunting, especially with long-term abusers such as OfficialPankajPatidar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who use multiple accounts on the same drafts and articles. GABgab 17:17, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
    Impossible by my understanding. We have things like article_recent_contributors and article_first_contributor, but there's no way to find out anything about those accounts, such as the edit count. The normal checks we can do only apply to the edit being made — MusikAnimal talk 23:59, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
      • Ah, well. Thank you anyways! GABgab 14:13, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Stormfront (a Nazi website)

  • Task: Please could an edit filter be made to stop edits like this which insert links to the website of Stormfront, a Nazi organisation. DuncanHill (talk) 21:15, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Reason: It is used for trolling and cannot be used as a reliable source for anything. DuncanHill (talk) 00:09, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
    @DuncanHill: Is there ever a legitimate reason to link to this site? If not, please consider the spam blacklist (even though it isn't necessarily spam) — MusikAnimal talk 00:03, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
    Sorry, just now noticing you linked to the article Stormfront (website), so obviously there are legitimate reasons to link to it. Under what conditions do you think it would be inappropriate? — MusikAnimal talk 00:05, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Pretty much anywhere other than the article about the website. It can't be used as a reliable source for anything. Sorry for not seeing the instructions. DuncanHill (talk) 00:09, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist exists for links that are appropriate. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:18, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Attack helicopter gender meme

  • Task: Search for the string "attack heli*" on articles and talk pages with "gender" and/or "trans" in the title, and flag the edit as possible vandalism. (Ideally, also apply filter to all articles under Category:Transgender and transsexual people and its subcategories.)
  • Reason: There is an offensive meme directed at people with non-binary genders (like myself) that suggests "attack helicopter" is a valid gender. Various editors have vandalized gender-related articles with variations on this meme. Some recent examples: 1, 2, 3, 4. Funcrunch (talk) 18:43, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

TWo initial capitals

  • Task: If a newly added link has two initial capitals followed by some lowercase letters, and if that link goes to a nonexistent page or to a redirect marked with {{R from typo}}, warn the user: something like "are you sure you meant to do this?" Warn only, since there can sometimes be good reason for doing this. Bots should be exempted — a bot that's intentionally adding such a link would be stopped from editing until the operator recoded things, a bot that's accidentally adding such a link should be blocked because it's misbehaving, and all other bots won't make typos at all.
  • Reason: It's always easy to make typos such as "CApital letter" or "WIkipedia", easy enough that many programs will autocorrect them to a single capital. Of course, our software shouldn't be in the business of changing things people write, but we ought to ask them if they're intending to add what's almost always a mistake.

Nyttend (talk) 03:29, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

UNless something has changed since the last time I read the documentation, the edit filter can't tell if a link is red or not, or know anything about the content of a page besides the one being edited. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:56, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Oh. In that case, never mind; there's no way the filter should be holding you up from adding a link to an existing page merely because the page's title has two existing capitals. Nyttend (talk) 10:46, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Reverting IP vandalism on birth/death dates & places

  • Task: Revert all edits by IPs using the article's title as the edit summary.
  • Reason: As reported at ANI, an anonymous editor has been adding (mostly) false birth/death dates and places using a number of different IPs, so blocking is not useful. The editor always uses the article title as their edit summary (see here or here for a couple of IPs they've edited from). Number 57 18:40, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Gonzo/Trump 2020

  • Task: Stop IP editors from adding "Gonzo" and "Trump 2020" to articles and edit summaries (especially on BLP pages)
  • Reason: Per the discussion at ANI found here. There is an IP hopping vandal in the 2600:387:2:8* range who adds these words to left-leaning activists' (esp. BLM activists) and other Black Americans' articles as well as any page with the word Gonzo in it. Example edits: [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56].

Range contribs since March 25, 2017 found here. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:51, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

New users in wrong namespace

  • Task: Warn new users who attempt to create pages in the template namespace or project space, or who attempt to move a page into the project space. Subpages would be exempt. (custom warning(s) needed)
  • Reason: These are almost always the result of test edits, unfamiliarity with wikilinks/templates/the editing interface, or confusion over namespaces when attempting to publish a draft.

– Train2104 (t • c) 05:48, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

The moves are a more common situation than I originally thought...see my move log. At the very minimum a bunch of conditions should be removed from Special:AbuseFilter/5. – Train2104 (t • c) 05:26, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Testing at Special:AbuseFilter/1 to see the extent of what we're dealing with. @Train2104: I don't quite follow you on why we need to adjust Special:AbuseFilter/5? It deals with user to user, and user talk to article talk. Here we want to test for user(talk) to Wikipedia(talk), and I guess user to template as well — MusikAnimal talk 18:41, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
@MusikAnimal: - I think my request was a little unclear. Approaching it with a fresh mind, this is what I came up with in code form...maybe this has too many false positives? But it would be a warn, so users could go ahead anyway.
user_editcount < 100 & (
  (
    action == "move" &
    contains_any(moved_to_namespace, 4, 5) &
    !(contains_any(moved_from_namespace, 4, 5)) &
    !(contains_any(article_text,"deletion","discussion","creation","WikiProject","Sockpuppet"))
  ) | 
  (
    old_size == 0 &
    !("/" in article_text) &
    contains_any(article_namespace, 4, 10)
  )
)
Pinging @Steel1943: to see if he wants to add/remove conditions. I'm not limiting the moves to userspace moves, to catch things like [57][58]. It may be better to have two filters, as the custom warning message for the second case is different than the first case. – Train2104 (t • c) 20:25, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
The test filter 1 as written is picking up a bunch of things that shouldn't be picked up...I suspect it's due to the use of moved_to_text in the second check? IP's editing projectspace pages shouldn't get caught. – Train2104 (t • c) 23:14, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
@Train2104: Indeed, that should be article_text not moved_to_text. I've modified the filter, but am not sure about !(contains_any(article_text,"deletion","discussion","creation","WikiProject","Sockpuppet")). When would you (a newish user) move a page to a title like this? — MusikAnimal talk 15:39, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
True, though newish users may file deletion discussions, they're unlikely to have to move them. I'd leave the WikiProject exclusion in there though, there are some legitimate moves to WikiProject subpages. – Train2104 (t • c) 18:40, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I've created a dedicated filter at Special:AbuseFilter/850. To reduce false positives, I think we might want to only check for moves to the project space. The creations there and in Template are often garbage (to put it bluntly), but they seem intentional, hence I don't want to warn them about test edits or namespace confusion. How does that sound? Would you mind helping come up with the message to show them? — MusikAnimal talk 20:57, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Sure. It seems like that'll catch most of it, plus new page patrol is way easier than move log patrol. I'll work on a warning (pinging Steel1943 again). Note - the title on 850 is incorrect - 4 and 5 are WP and WT (which is what I intended). Also, how does this behave when it comes to moving a page along with its talk page? Will it warn the user twice? – Train2104 (t • c) 22:11, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
(Thought I had already responded to this, seems I didn't) I'm not convinced that there's a need to do this with "Template:" namespace creation/moves, but I do strongly agree that there is a need to do page creation/move prompts for pages created/moved to the "Wikipedia:" namespace. Strong evidence on why restrictions for creating/moving pages in the "Wikipedia:" namespace can be found in my CSD log, starting in July 2016. New editors frequently move drafts they are publishing into the "Wikipedia:" namespace thinking that it is the article space; all deletions in my CSD log related to this are leftover redirects from correcting this mistake. Steel1943 (talk) 23:03, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
@Steel1943: Draft: User:Train2104/Abusefilter-warning-project-move It's a bit wordy...feel free to add/remove/simplify as you see fit. – Train2104 (t • c) 23:07, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
@Train2104: If this notice is to be used exclusively for page moves into the "Wikipedia:" namespace and not page creations, then the following will need to be reworded in one way or another:

*create a WikiProject page, deletion discussion, or other administrative page? You are in the right place. Please press "Save page" below to save your edit.

To me, this looks misleading since this notice is not used for page creations, and erroneously titled pages for deletion discussions are very rare anymore. Also, new users (I'm assuming that this is what the filter is meant to trigger: users with less than 100 edits) are probably not creating WikiProject pages. (However, I will say that adding all of these terms to a notice is very beneficial since, for a lack of a better explanation, will essentially scare new users into not introducing human error.) Steel1943 (talk) 00:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
@Steel1943: I've gotten rid of the words "deletion discussion" and changed the word "create" to "publish", as well shortening the physical box. – Train2104 (t • c) 02:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
@Train2104: Looks good. I suppose then I have essentially one last question/concern, given that I am not at all familiar with how edit filters work: Is there a way to detect what namespace a page is moving from in regards to this notice? Just wondering since it doesn't make sense to suggest moving a page to the "Draft:" namespace if the page is already in that namespace. Steel1943 (talk) 03:03, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
This is question for @MusikAnimal:. I don't believe edit filter warnings are parameterizable. You could have the edit filter itself not do anything on Draft -> Project moves, but that seems like a bad idea as I've definitely seen that move happen before. I'm more concerned about my question above, since I'm not sure how MediaWiki treats the "move associated talk page" option. The user may get two warnings. – Train2104 (t • c) 03:07, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
@Train2104: "You could have the edit filter itself not do anything on Draft -> Project moves, but that seems like a bad idea as I've definitely seen that move happen before."" Right, I agree that doing so would be an issue since I've seen that happen before as well. Steel1943 (talk) 12:27, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 Done There are moved_from_namespace and moved_to_namespace variables, but I agree we should show a warning regardless of what namespace they are moving from (unless it was also Wikipedia). The user should receive only one notice, as is the case if an action tripped multiple filters that have warnings. The warning you've created looks good to me, so I've deployed it :) Thanks for making this happen! I think this filter will prove to be effective, and save people a lot of headaches — MusikAnimal talk 15:34, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! It looks like it's working well. – Train2104 (t • c) 15:10, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Edit_filter/Requested/Archive_9&oldid=1136459770"