Hosta

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

Archives

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

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 4 sections are present.

• Task: Filter 614 exists for a reason, but it doesn't catch edits like the ones mentioned below:
• Reason: To catch vandalism to meme pages like Skibidi Toilet
• Diffs: Special:AbuseLog/35756965 Special:AbuseLog/35699619 Special:AbuseLog/37436369 Special:AbuseLog/30671860
• Conditions: meme := "(?i)(" + str_replace(str_replace(page_title,"(the|or|and)","")," ","|") + ")";

bad_desc := "(cringe|worst|best)"; any_meme := "(skibd|skidibi|skibid|rizz|bozo|\(meme\))"; meme_cat := "(meme\}\}|fads\]\]|trends\]\]|slang\]\])"; !"confirmed" in user_groups & page_title irlike any_meme & ( rcount(meme, added_lines) / 3 > rcount("\.", added_lines) + 0.5 | /* prevent excessive use of the meme */ rcount(bad_desc,added_lines) > 3 | /* prevent defamation of the meme */ (removed_lines irlike meme_cat & !old_wikitext irlike meme_cat) /* prevent decategorization from meme categories */ )

• Actions: Disallow

Faster than Thunder (talk | contributions) 01:06, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the third filter log entry should be disallowed by filter 1233 (hist · log) but wasn't caught, the second log entry looks like your everyday run-of-the-mill disruption, and the first log entry is likely low-effort disruption that may want to be prevented by some filters. Maybe we could set 1163 (hist · log) to warn+tag or disallow.

By the way,  !( (removed_lines + page_title) irlike abuseStr) basically means that Skibidi Toilet additions are excluded from said article describing this meme itself. Codename Noreste 🤔 La Suma 02:13, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please note that before disallowing, we always test filters on log or tag before to minimize the possibility of a huge amount of false positives. If this is made into a seperate filter then, I highly doubt it will be set to disallow immediately. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 13:45, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I hereby retract saying to set 1163 to disallow after seeing your comment, but couldn’t we at least set this to warn with the tag? Codename Noreste 🤔 La Suma 14:58, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I believe that usually, filters are first set to log or tag just to see if they work well or not, as even warning could be problematic if the filter has too many FPs. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 15:01, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone start this filter with no actions enabled first please? Faster than Thunder (talk | contributions) 20:43, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you break down what each part of that filter is trying to do? It doesn't make sense to me. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:06, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Faster than Thunder (talk | contributions) 22:45, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Faster than Thunder (talk | contributions) 21:22, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Alright. So we have:

meme := "(?i)(" + str_replace(page_title," ","|") + ")";

and

length(meme) * 2 < rcount(meme,added_lines) | // prevent excessive use of the meme

First, you're generating meme by splitting apart the title. That's clever, but what about a title like "Bozo the Clown"? One of your words is going to be "the". Second, rcount() counts the total number of matches, not the total length of the matches put together. If you want to prevent excessive use of a word, say something more like:

rcount(meme, added_lines) - rcount(meme, removed_lines) > 2

But I don't that's a good idea. It's natural for the title of the article to be repeated many times throughout the page.

Now we have:

get_matches(bad_desc,added_lines) > 3 | // prevent defamation of the meme

But get_matches() returns a fixed-size array. I'm not sure what the "3" is supposed to mean.

And finally:

(removed_lines irlike meme_cat & !old_wikitext irlike meme_cat) // prevent decategorization from meme categories

This won't match anything, but could be fixed by using added_lines instead of old_wikitext. But we already have 132 (hist · log) for category removal.

Thanks for this, but I think it's just inevitable that "meme pages" are going to end up semi-protected, at least temporarily. There are just too many creative ways to vandalize. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:24, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the 3 in get_matches(bad_desc,added_lines) > 3 | // prevent defamation of the meme is supposed to be compared to the array length so maybe @Faster than Thunder really just meant length(get_matches(bad_desc,added_lines)) > 3. I also do sadly agree that vandalism to meme pages is bound to happen, and we'll probably need to protect them at some point. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 22:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Faster than Thunder: Also, if we have a bad_desc variable to prevent defamation, wouldn't another issue be to say that the meme is the "best"? So would it also be a good idea to create a separate variable to prevent additions like that? – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 02:57, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I implemented your suggestions. Faster than Thunder (talk | contributions) 17:40, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could we also block "skibidi toilet", "skibidi", and such as per the thread below? I don't know how the filters work. Myrealnamm (💬talk · ✏️contribs) at 19:17, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They are already added because of "skibid." Faster than Thunder (talk | contributions) 19:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See this, which an IP vandalized using "skibidi toilet" as the edit summary. This should be added @Faster than Thunder. Myrealnamm (💬talk · ✏️contribs) at 23:37, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is the wrong filter to request it in, because that was in another article, but this could be added to a new filter idea or something like 614 (hist · log). – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 00:32, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very funny. XD Faster than Thunder (talk | contributions) 20:22, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now that some improvements have been made to the filter idea, what new changes need to be made to the filter before it can be created? Faster than Thunder (talk | contributions) 17:39, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I share the same concerns as SoY. Vandals on meme pages are going to come up with new ways faster than a filter can catch them, and it's far more efficient to just protect the small number of "meme-type" pages than to try and craft a filter that has every single variation and type of petty vandalism out there. It's possible for general vandalism filters, because the terms in those are spread throughout the encyclopedia, but for specific pages, it's going to just end up with vandals getting around the filter on purpose. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 22:29, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@EggRoll97 That's very true. However, these vandals seem to vandalize with "meme words" on all the pages, so hmmmm. Myrealnamm (💬talk · ✏️contribs) at 00:22, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. I think the best thing to do is to just semi-protect the meme pages, instead of creating and constantly changing a filter that won't catch all the vandalism sadly. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 04:45, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per this discussion (pinging @GreenC):

• Task – In the |result= parameter of {{Infobox military conflict}}, disallow edits between sides of "X victory", in addition to edits away from or between "X victory", "Inconclusive", and "See (article section)" by IP addresses or very new users.
• Reason – Widespread tendentious editing by those unfamiliar with site guidelines, at a bare minimum with MOS:MILHIST. After parameter is in accordance with said guideline, it almost never needs to be changed.
• Diffs:
  • Fourth Crusade
  • Battle of Karnal
  • First Chechen War

Remsense诉 01:17, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a hard one, because there could be so many false positives, like if someone corrects a typo in the result parameter and gets a disallow message. I would suggest something like tag or warn at most unless someone can find a non FP-prone way of filtering these types of edits, but this should definitely be a log-only filter at first. The regex should also probably be similar to something like 391 (hist · log). – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 02:15, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that initial caution is required, but unfortunately I don't see a warning saying "changes require reliable sources" being effective in the end? Remsense诉 02:21, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agreed. But first we should make the filter ready to be disallowed by minimizing the amount of FPs as much as possible. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 03:15, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Remsense: As to the prospect of disallow, I'm going to say  Not done. The top of this page even states, Edit filters are used primarily to prevent abuse. Contributors are not expected to have read all 200+ policies, guidelines and style pages before editing, and I don't think it's a far stretch to assume that edits are all in bad faith. Even in the diffs provided, the edit to Fourth Crusade seems misguided and wrong, but not necessarily in bad faith. Any filter that catches this would end up with a non-zero amount of false positives. I'm not against a log or maybe a tag filter, though. I'll see if I can work one up, but if anyone wants to have a shot at trying the code in the meantime feel free. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 04:04, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that new usernames which contain "Skibidi" in them often are used only for disruption/vandalism/trolling. Is there any way we could add a filter which blocks all usernames with "Skibidi" and/or sends them to UAA? If you reply here, please ping me. Thanks — thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 02:33, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if creating a filter that prevents Skibidi (toilet) usernames is necessary (after all, it compares every account creation when set to action == "createaccount"); there is User:AmandaNP/UAA/Blacklist in which you can propose adding s+k+[i1bdt]{4,}y*\b on the talk page. Codename Noreste 🤔 La Suma 03:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that the regex above would need to be continuosly updated as the filter changes. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 19:47, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not really; there's no need to catch them all. I don't like disallowing usernames which scream "I am NOTHERE" but aren't so offensive as to require a revdel; those usernames just make the vandalism easier to spot. (Plus the first word to disallow should be "Truth".) And reporting to UAA on account creation isn't really helpful unless the username is block-on-sight. They might wait hours or days to edit, or never edit at all. Now, we could have filter which reports to UAA on the first edit, at which point it's usually clear what the user is up to. But as CN points out, DeltaQuadBot already does that, so why not just add to DQB's list? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:56, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Task: Prevent the addition of malformed requests at WP:Articles for creation/Redirects
• Reason: Persistent spam
• Diffs: Proper:[1][2]; Malformed:[3][4]

I'm not good at this, but something like this might work:

format := "
^== .* ==\n
*Target of redirect:\[\[.+\]\]\n
*Reason:.*\n
*Source (if applicable):.*\n
<references />\n
~~~~$
"

!( "confirmed" in user_groups ) &
page_title == "Articles for creation/Redirects" &
!(added_lines_pst rlike format)

'''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 07:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CanonNi: This seems like a single-page issue, which is more of an WP:RFPP thing. Maybe pending changes protection to that page could help? EggRoll97 ^(talk) 18:58, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. That is a fair point, but we do have similar filters for WP:RFPP (filter 1291 (hist · log)) so this is not unheard of. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 21:55, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I've requested protection at RFPP. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 23:57, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Task: A new filter could prevent the non-autoconfirmed from adding links to instagram[.]com to Talk:Instagram.
• Reason: There has been a persistent problem with self-promotion on Talk:Instagram where users link their Instagram profiles or posts in an attempt to gain followers. This advertising is quickly reverted. Semi-protection has been applied as a countermeasure, though the protecting admin has admitted that this isn't ideal (see Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Archive/2024/06). I believe that this filter would be a better alternative than protecting a talk page.
• Diffs: Examples of such promotion: [5] [6]

Air on White (talk) 00:21, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support such a filter, with the result being Disallow. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 02:08, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wait... isn't the talk page already semi-protected? '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 02:10, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection recently expired; immediately after, the page started being bombarded with promotion. It was soon semi-protected again. I am requesting a filter because it is better than semi-protecting. Air on White (talk) 02:47, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I agree. Just saying. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 03:12, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I took a superficial look of the last 50+ edits and I'm not convinced that self-promotion (adding links) is even 1/4th of the disruption, so I don't foresee the protection being removed even if this filter is made. – 2804:F14:80BE:B501:BC28:2F:9049:1F4D (talk) 07:16, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in general, I would say that this is a too temporary (probably) and localized issue to warrant a whole new filter. Page protection (semi or pending changes) should be the way to work. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 18:20, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah...I can't see a filter being much better at this than semi-protection. Probably going to be more of a  Not done for now. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 04:05, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Task: Prevent non-autoconfirmed from adding the word "incel" to article space.
• Reason: This word is mostly used for vandalism and particularly affects BLPs. It should be prohibited like the rest of zoomer/moomer slang used in vandalism.
• Diffs: example

Air on White (talk) 21:21, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can see legitimate use for the word as something someone has called themselves, or for talking about such people. So this shouldn't be done without a whitelist. - Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 08:02, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. There are literally hundreds of articles that use the word correctly, most of which are not BLPs. There's also a company and a drug called "Incel". Black Kite (talk) 08:24, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At least add it. Filter 614 allows individual use of terms like "gyatt" and "rizz" but bans them in combination. Air on White (talk) 09:14, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What about that at least add this to tag-only 189 (hist · log) for BLP articles? Codename Noreste 🤔 Talk 18:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How many times does a person add "incel" to a BLP to vandalize it? How many times in contrast does a living person actually describe themselves as an incel with RS to back it up? The ratio is too high for non-autoconfirmed to keep adding the term. We ban Blogspot, the Daily Mail and Breitbart for the same reason even though they have conceivable legitimate uses. Air on White (talk) 09:17, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another catch: pages where the use of "incel" is legitimate are likely already semi-protected due to incel-related vandalism. Air on White (talk) 09:49, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that we test it out and refine the regex at 189 (hist · log) as Codename Noreste suggested, where we can see the FP rate and if this addition is really needed first. If it seems to be effective and useful, we can move it to a disallow filter. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 18:28, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Could the line !('/' in page_title) & be removed from 803 (hist · log)? I can't think of a scenario where a new user would need to edit someone else's subpage, and I've seen users vandalizing guestbooks and other subpages before. Thanks. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 10:32, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you only remove that line then new users editing their own subpage will be hit. Nobody (talk) 11:03, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding page_first_contributor != user_name could work for already created subpages. Nobody (talk) 11:23, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I think that will work too. (sorry I'm not that familiar with edit filters) '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 11:29, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a solution for hitting subpage creations on other users yet. Can non-confirmed editors even do that? Nobody (talk) 11:31, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so... I tried creating a subpage of my userpage logged out and it won't let me. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 11:34, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then this change could be worthwile. Nobody (talk) 11:41, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unregistered users can't create any pages in userspace, including their "own". Registered but not confirmed editors can create pages anywhere in userspace. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:00, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Suffusion of Yellow Do you think it would need a RfC if we wanted to block non-confirmed users from creating subpages for other users? Nobody (talk) 05:10, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm asking since the edits tagged by Filter 733 (log) don't look that good. Nobody (talk) 05:15, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It would still need some sort of wider discussion, though maybe not a giant RFC. I'm not convinced this is a good idea. This edit seems to be from a student editor who is (according to their userpage) participating in some sort of translation project. Again, if users want to collaborate on a draft, does it really matter where they put it? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:14, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've been keeping an eye on Filter 733 and I don't think that the one translating clatt that User:OberMegaTrans is running is a good enough reason for not changing it to disallow. But I agree that the change to 803 would need a bigger discussion. Nobody (talk) 05:13, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is simple enough technically, but 803 was only enabled after an RFC which specifically excluded supages. An obvious use-case is collaborating on a draft. If you want to start a second RFC, let me know, and I'll create a log-only filter tracking subpage edits so people don't have to speculate. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:56, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Task: Non-autoconfirmed users and IPs should not be able to create userpages that are not of their own IP.
• Reason: I discover and nominate at least one such page every week. Most seem to be created in error, and users should be warned to create pages at the right title. A disproportionate number of such pages, however, are spam or vandalism. There is also an LTA who persistently creates userpages for IPv4s starting with "85."
• Diffs: User:154.115.222.191/sandbox created by a registered user to post a biography. User:154.115.231.75/Sample page, User:177.223.175.103, etc. are similar.

Air on White (talk) 00:14, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you ask about this anywhere else? This suggestion seems very familiar. – 2804:F14:8086:B701:80CC:FCD6:43E3:855B (talk) 03:01, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I asked in WP:VPT, but the discussion never picked up. Air on White (talk) 03:03, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was remembering this Teahouse question, actually. Anyways, I have no other comment, but the edit notice may be relevant for your suggestion. – 2804:F1...E3:855B (talk) 03:11, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I misremembered then. There were three types of arguments against such a filter: The first fundamentally misunderstands either the problem or the proposal. The second straw mans or slippery slopes my argument as a ban on IP editing. The third is a fallacious sentiment that too much effort would be needed for this. It would only save editor time if I didn't have to deal with these bullshit userpages in the first place - how hard is it to just add the filter and the necessary warning to not create sandboxes for random IPs that aren't your own? Air on White (talk) 03:15, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mind you, IPs already can't create pages except in various talk namespaces, so IP's can't create their own user pages, would make a filter even simpler.

Also I wasn't making any sort of point, I just remembered it - do read the edit notice before discussing the LTA part of this suggestion in any detail though (if it's even significant enough to be relevant).

– 2804:F14:8086:B701:80CC:FCD6:43E3:855B (talk) 03:57, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that 1076 (hist · log), with a filter's description of "Draftified article more than 180 days old", be modified from a threshold of 180 days to 90 days. The notes in the filter say the following:

• 2020/09/20 - changed from 90 to 120 days - NPP often takes longer than 90 days (bv)
• 2021/12/10 - change to 180 days (bv)

Since these changes where the filter moved from 90 to 180 days, there has been a RfC on the matter of draftifications and how long after creation is appropriate. It was closed March 24, 2022, and the result was that pages over 90 days should not generally be draftified. As such, it makes sense for the filter to reflect this. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:49, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I second this as well. Codename Noreste 🤔 Talk 22:10, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Task: Catches phrases that indicate potential sockpuppetry of vandals.
• Reason: Sometimes users insert phrases that are vandalism in one article but not vandalism in another.
• Diffs: Check Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Smallmouthbassboost and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/JesusWins777.
• Conditions:
  celeb := "(Taylor Swift)";
bad_word := "(piss)";
!"confirmed" in user_groups & page_namespace == 0 & (
added_lines rlike bad_word & added_lines rlike celeb |
summary rlike "(|\/\**\*\/)"
)
• Throttling: 10 edits per 300 seconds
• Actions: Disallow

Faster than Thunder (talk | contributions) 05:13, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Faster than Thunder, I would highly recommend sending this to the edit filter mailing list on wikipedia-en-editfilterslists.wikimedia.org because this might involve sockpuppetry stuff or similar (assuming that you might or might not have read the edit notice about not discussing private filters here). EFMs on the mailing list might add this type of edit to, for example, 53 (hist · log), or it might be worth adding this to a new private filter. Codename Noreste 🤔 Talk 22:03, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]