Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested

From Wikipedia

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 Tool Labs, 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]

Migosyrn[edit]

  • Task: Disallow any edits that follow the standard patterns of the socks of User:Migosyrn's edits.
  • Reason: This user has become increasingly hard to handle when it comes to stopping the user. Considering that he has a standard sort of editing style, the edit filter may be helpful here.

My name isnotdave (talk/contribs) 16:28, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Userpage spambots[edit]

  • Task: This filter will check for the characteristic behaviors that most Wikipedia spambots exhibit. Most of them involve creating a page containing a couple of sentences, followed by "my website" or "my site", which is itself followed by a spam link that is labeled (e.g. "Watch movies online free"). This is usually created at the main user page, but I've also seen it done at user talk pages. Deleted examples: User:EvelyneMain2, User:VicenteJensen, User:BettyLyjqf, User:Heidieveret, User talk:Vlolitz, User talk:Jouphabe, and other users listed at Special:BlockList blocked with the reason "spambot". Notice how nearly all of them involve two names put together, without spaces, with only the names capitalized to distinguish between them.
  • Reason: For obvious reasons, to block spambots. Most spambots exhibit this particular behavior, and an edit filter that disallows this (log only for now, of course) would help stop them.

- Gparyani (talk) 04:58, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All but one of the pages you list were caught by Special:AbuseFilter/499 already. One was also caught by Special:AbuseFilter/466. Both of these filters are currently hidden. Disallow didn't work because of false positives. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:22, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Someguy1221: What happens if you change them to warn? Does that hinder the spambots in any way? Oh, and are there too many false positives that a tag can't be used? Gparyani (talk) 23:18, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
466 is set to warn and seems to deter no one. 499's false positive rate could be as high as 50%. Mr.Zbot already reports all 466 hits to AIV for administrator review. Not sure if anyone or anything is monitoring 499's hit log. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:22, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Someguy1221: If it's set to tag, would many users complain? Or can anything else be done about it that can reduce the false positive rate? Gparyani (talk) 23:34, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
499 is very accurate in what it's tagging, just not in identifying edits as spam. I suppose a tag that's fairly literal to what the filter actually catches would not be offensive at all. Maybe bring it up at WT:EF for more thoughts? Someguy1221 (talk) 23:46, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cause of death vandal[edit]

  • Task: the long-term and repeatedly blocked cause of death vandal is a tricky one. They operate from IP ranges far too big to rangeblock (and recently from a different country), and hit random biographical articles, making semi-protection unviable as well. However, the similarity in many of their edits (nearly all of it in infoboxes) suggests to me that a filter could be useful here.
  • Reason To prevent vandalism, some of which (due to its sheer randomness) can remain in articles for a long time. Black Kite (talk) 19:17, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • They're still going, see [1]. A good starting point would be to disallow IPs changing (infobox musical artist) to (infobox person), i.e. [2]. The vandal does this because the former template does not have cause of death, etc. on it. Black Kite (talk) 09:11, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • And still going. Latest range; 86.174.160.0/22, but there's a whole list here. Can I ask for a "yes" or "can't be done" on this please, so we can work out an alternative plan if not? Thanks. Black Kite (talk) 10:30, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Black Kite: This will be a hard filter to make but it might be possible, for at least some of the characteristics. I'll have a think about it but eyes from more experienced EFMs would be appreciated. Sam Walton (talk) 10:04, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Filter 712 already to logs DoB changes (Black Kite@ Filter log 712 might be useful.). Extend that to the other well-known changes, and limit by IP range. Then the decision is whether to log or block, which can only be decided after watching the logs for a few days. (On a side-note it would be good to have some empirical data on the impact of various strategies, specifically blocking, quick reversion, and more leisurely reversion, on medium term vandals.) All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:57, 5 September 2015 (UTC).
[reply]

Inexperienced users removing amboxes[edit]

Sometimes, inexperienced users try to remove article maintenance tags (amboxes) from articles.

  • Task: 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.[3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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.

    Symbol question.svg Question: 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)[reply]


Discussion ongoing...

Changing owner field in infoboxes[edit]

  • Task: Disallow non-autoconfirmed editors from changing the |owner= field in certain infoboxes, such as {{Infobox NHL team}} (but likely useful to apply to most sports infoboxes)
  • Reason: Periodic vandalism of articles like this, this and this has been going on for years, but seems to be increasing in frequency lately, perhaps in part because media has taken to writing lazy "someone vandalized Wikipedia hyuk hyuk" articles as of late (e.g.: CSN Chicago). I have no recent examples since I don't follow many articles for other sports teams, but I have seen these types of vandal edits on baseball, basketball and football team pages in the past. I could put together a list of templates if this is doable and desirable.

- Resolute 00:08, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh... Again and again. Resolute 16:58, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Resolute: A list of templates to monitor would be useful. Tracking all |owner= changes will be too broad I think. Sam Walton (talk) 11:22, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Samwalton9: - Sure. The NHL infobox listed above (and which would allow me to lift protection on three articles), {{Infobox MLB}}, {{NBA team}}, {{Infobox NFL team}} and {{Infobox football club}} would be a good start. All five use the same owner= parameter. Resolute 14:00, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Samwalton9: It keeps happening. Fortunately, the NHL playoffs will end soon, but I think we've had to protect at least seven team articles during the post-season for this exact reason. I'm seeing it in the odd NBA article as well. Thanks! Resolute 14:16, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Another example, this time from MLB. Resolute 16:14, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Last fresh example I'll add, as there is no further need to demonstrate that this is ongoing, imo; [19]. Thanks, Resolute 15:32, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, one more. So add {{Infobox American football team}} to the list. Resolute 01:20, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
@Samwalton9: 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)[reply]
@Samwalton9: He's still at it... Yunshui  08:17, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Yunshui: Sorry for the delay. Log only at Special:AbuseFilter/724 for now. Sam Walton (talk) 11:18, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, thanks Sam. Yunshui  11:23, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

G-Zay[edit]

  • Task: Prevent edits of libelous information added to WP:BLPs and video game articles by User:G-Zay, specifically on Yoshinori Kitase, Tetsuya Nomura and Square Enix-related articles
  • Reason: See User_talk:G-Zay/Source_problems for article details. After his community ban back in April, and a lengthy and extensive cleanup on articles he had edited (which I took part in), this individual has pretty much continuously come back as an IP-hopping sockpuppet; while occasionally he has made fake accounts, in general the pattern is that an IP pops up, edits a couple pages to promote his agenda, and then, after a few reverts where they plead that they are not G-Zay, the pages get locked and the IP vanishes. A couple weeks later, a new, slightly-different IP appears on a different, related article, and the cycle continues. His latest tactic is to make a grandiose statement about how he has done, as he has accomplished what he intended to. The IP editors continue to act in the exact same method as the sock puppeteer. G-Zay's most recent IPs are User-multi error: "whois" is not a valid link code (help). and User-multi error: "whois" is not a valid link code (help). which are located in the United Kingdom. However, I am concerned that he will cause more problems if he continues to abuse IPs to circumvent his ban. I would like the edit filter to have this user's edits permanently prevented until the bot is shut down. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:04, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, here's some history on the individual. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:32, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Sjones23: I imagine the reason for this filter having not been made yet is the lack of anything obvious to search for. Can you suggest anything we could search for in edits that would pinpoint this user? Perhaps something relatively unique they tend to write in edit summaries or edits. Sam Walton (talk) 20:36, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'll see what can be done about it. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:53, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
@The Bushranger: If this is still happening, remove the stale tag. PhantomTech (talk) 06:06, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
That would be Wikipedia:Bot requests. Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:37, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Can do both. Wifione Message 19:34, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
User:ThePhantomBot is currently logging this type of behavior and I plan to make it do more than that after it has been approved. PhantomTech (talk) 06:47, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • @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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
MusikAnimal has improved the filter a bit so we'll see how it goes. Narrowed to adding a new section rather than checking for any largeish plot/summary edit to existing ones. Sam Walton (talk) 19:20, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@MER-C and MusikAnimal: Could you check if the filter is worth continuing? Sam Walton (talk) 12:08, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lions at Cat Creek[edit]

@The Bushranger: Are they still active? PhantomTech (talk) 06:06, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@PhantomTech: I've seen a few socks of this user recently, but not as many as in the past. Ping me if you need me to reply EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:26, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Dispenser, do you know if this is still an issue? Sam Walton (talk) 09:07, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
You could match lines removed with \[\[([a-z ]{1,50}\|)?[a-z ]{1,25}]] and lines added with ##([a-z ]{1,50}\|)?[a-z ]{1,25}## to identify the changing links. PhantomTech (talk) 07:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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]

WPCleaner[edit]

  • Task: Tag edits made with WPCleaner. It's not actually an edit filter request, just a request for the creation of the tag, as it is possible now to create tags than can afterwards be applied to edits through the API. It has been done on frwiki, where there's now a dedicated tag for WPCleaner as there are also other dedicated tags for other tools. As I don't have access to administrator tools, I don't know how to create such tags that are different from edit filters: on frwiki, they appear in Special:Tags with a special source, "Appliquée manuellement par les utilisateurs et les bots" which translates to "Applied manually by users and bots".
  • Reason: It's easier to track what each tool is used for if there's a dedicated tag, instead of having to look at the edit comment to see.

- NicoV (Talk on frwiki) 21:44, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not actually familiar with how creating/editing tags is supposed to work now that we can change them, as far as I'm aware the discussion to enable editing or removing tags closed with the consensus that who could edit them could be decided later on, when a custom tag had actually been made. I'll look into this. Sam Walton (talk) 12:24, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@NicoV: Ok, after much reading I've found that we're waiting on this change. Once the tag editing UI has been restricted I'll be happy to create the tag. Sam Walton (talk) 13:21, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Samwalton9: Thank for the answer ! I hope that it means that any registered user could still apply a tag when making an edit (which will be needed for WPCleaner as anyone can use the tool), only preventing users to change tags of an existing edit. --NicoV (Talk on frwiki) 04:59, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@NicoV: I believe that's the case, yes. There are two tag userrights as far as I understand, one allows a user to place a tag when making an edit, and the other allows them to edit and delete placed tags. I think the former is in some way enabled for all users. I've left Cenarium a message asking when we can expect the change to go through but I haven't had a response yet. Sam Walton (talk) 15:39, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@NicoV: Cenarium has made the tag, I'm not sure how it's supposed to be integrated with WPCleaner now, but it's in Special:Tags and at MediaWiki:Tag-WPCleaner. Sam Walton (talk) 13:09, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot, I changed WPCleaner configuration, and it works. --NicoV (Talk on frwiki) 20:25, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@NicoV: Excellent. Any idea why there are two account creations tagged with it? Sam Walton (talk) 20:49, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all, it's not possible to create accounts with WPCleaner, so it's been done by some other mean. Strange also, is that they were created at the same time. --NicoV (Talk on frwiki) 21:21, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@NicoV and Samwalton9: The tags were added after the fact by a probable vandalism account, Zoraistanism (talk · contribs), see Special:Log/tag, I've removed them. The tag editing UI is hidden in histories and logs with css but users can still directly access the special page to edit tags (Special:EditTags), or they may have a weird setup where the css hack doesn't work. That's one of the reasons for restricting the userright to update tags (this commit). We just need to watch the tag log from time to time to see it if happens again. Cenarium (talk) 22:27, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Selami Mustafa[edit]

- Yunshui  08:47, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And 178.220.93.253, 178.220.93.173, 178.220.93.140. Sometimes it's just the string "Selami Mustafa". - DVdm (talk) 09:38, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And Selamim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). Burninthruthesky (talk) 09:29, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Yunshui: Right. Back it: 178.220.242.165 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · checkuser (log)). Please put a simple end to this. - DVdm (talk) 09:48, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Log only for now at Filter 725. Sam Walton (talk) 10:00, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes check.svg Done Set to disallow, seems to be working fine. Sam Walton (talk) 12:26, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Samwalton9:. Continues now as 178.220.104.153 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · checkuser (log)) — see edit [23], section header "Selami :04/01/1991". Edit filter should probably be narrowed to anything containing "Selami" - DVdm (talk) 13:03, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DVdm: It's been through a few iterations, I'm mostly playing catch-up with the changing patterns, but I'm keeping an eye on it and can hopefully stay on top of it. Sam Walton (talk) 18:27, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
See the recently created WP:DEADLINKSPAM for an overview. Sam Walton (talk) 16:52, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've created a filter at Special:AbuseFilter/711, log only for now. Presently it requires no tag to be present in added_lines to avoid false positives from users removing a dead-linked sentence altogether. It will probably be worth investigating whether this is actually a common occurrence at some point. Sam Walton (talk) 16:50, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Persistant spam[edit]

  • Task: put under observation and/or disallow words "Javad_Ramezani" by not autoconfirmed users with a timestamp atleast one year.
Very smart longeterm interwiki spamster, Copies some lines from some other article adds words Javad_Ramezani for self promotion, and creates new articles with new article names from new ips or new user names.


  • Please refer
this google search on en wikipedia
this google search on wikipedia.org to include all possible wikis
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iran man Besides also refer User:Iran man.
Woman (song javad) as of now still not gone for deletion request.
Insertion seems to haves been made also at article List of Iranian musicians

I suppose experinced spam fighters need to look into the issue.

- Mahitgar (talk) 05:10, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While this request is pending, still the same spam seems to continue. From google search I came across Aman az Eshgh (album) this page, where in there seems to be three attempt of recreation and admins deleting the same 31st may, 4rth June, 6th June. and also I came across a latest one dated 8th JuneHero (Javad song) which is still to get nominated for deletion process.
Mahitgar (talk) 17:26, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mahitgar (talk) 06:11, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Denied requests[edit]

Archive.is[edit]

(Apologies if this is not formatted correctly, I was referred to here from the whitelist). – Zumoarirodoka(talk)(email) 11:26, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with this filter or the relevant RfC, so pinging Kww who appears to have been involved in both. To me it looks like we shouldn't be allowing any archive.is links, but if it's the only archive I'm not sure if we should make an exception. Sam Walton (talk) 12:03, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No exceptions are warranted under these circumstances. Why on earth would we include an unlicensed archive copy of an unlicensed copy when a fully referenced archive exists? —Kww(talk) 15:34, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thank you. I've added that link into the article now. – Zumoarirodoka(talk)(email) 15:58, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

David1350[edit]

  • Task Flag or deny edits by socks of David1350 (talk · contribs) that create defamatory userspace articles on Navid Khiabani. Articles have been repeatedly deleted and they've taken to hiding them in userspace. Latest sock is Teamfact1 (talk · contribs), before that Factsheet (talk · contribs). Note that a number of Iranian IPs edited Factsheet's userpage.
  • Reason The material violates BLP and is part of a persistent campaign to use WP to denigrate Iranian expatriates. Acroterion (talk) 11:57, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A periodic userspace search would probably be a better idea, this appears to be sporadic over a long time period. Sam Walton (talk) 12:16, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Thanks Sam for looking into it. And thanks Acroterion for making the request. I'll keep doing what I'm doing, which is periodic searches. I'm also posting at sock user talks to try to help him see the futility. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:50, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Driver 3 vandal[edit]

  • Task: Can this filter be re-enabled please?
  • Reason: The Driver 3 vandal filter was added following this request, it has worked and stopped the vandalism to the article. On or before 2 June the filter was disabled. The vandalism has now returned (24 June and 25 June) proving that there is still a need for this. Can it be re-enabled please? - X201 (talk) 08:22, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Reaper Eternal: Since you disabled this, can you respond here? Also, page protection just on that page isn't really enough since the vandal targets many other pages (listed in the filter's definition). Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:57, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@X201: I discussed this on IRC with Reaper, who feels that since this vandal isn't affecting a large number of articles, it's not worth having a filter and the pages should be protected instead. Jackmcbarn (talk) 00:33, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm struggling with the logic. Is Reaper saying that its better to have protection that blocks all IP editors and that will lapse after a while, allowing the vandal back in, and which dumps the problem back on other editors, so that they have to clean up vandalism and re-apply for protection again. But an edit filter that blocks the one person who's causing the problem and cuts out the problem at source, is not worth having? - X201 (talk) 08:34, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Without comment as to the usefulness of the filter, the logic is like this: Each time an edit is saved it gets checked against all filters, running through each filter's conditions until it doesn't fulfill a condition at which point it moves on to the next. This takes time (in terms of edit save time) and processing power, and we have a limit on this - see the top of Special:AbuseFilter. "X [edits] have reached the condition limit of 1,000" means that recently X edits haven't been checked against all filters correctly because they hit a limit imposed on us on how many conditions any edit can be checked against. For this reason we need to prioritise filters that stop the most widespread and damaging cases, we can't afford to have unlimited numbers of filters. Sam Walton (talk) 08:54, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • As per the first bullet above, problematic changes on one article are not a good candidate for an edit filter, largely because of the condition limit described above. In that sense, indefinitely semi-protecting the article (if needed) is preferable to consuming conditions for a one-article filter. I'm moving this to the denied section. –Darkwind (talk) 07:34, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]