Wikipedia:Edit filter noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Welcome to the edit filter noticeboard
Filter 796 — Flags: disabled
Last changed at 22:32, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Filter 886 — Actions: <span style='color:red; Flags: disabled

Last changed at 20:25, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Filter 941 — Flags: disabled

Last changed at 15:12, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

This is the edit filter noticeboard, for coordination and discussion of edit filter use and management.

If you wish to request an edit filter, please post at Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested. If you would like to report a false positive, please post at Wikipedia:Edit filter/False positives.

Private filters should not be discussed in detail here; please email an edit filter manager if you have specific concerns or questions about the content of hidden filters.

Custom disallow messages[edit]

Right now, 17 filters are set to "warn, disallow". This is kind of pointless; if the edit is never going to save, we should just be disallowing it up front. Of course, in most cases this was just because the software didn't have an option for custom "disallow" messages, so if we wanted to show the user a custom message, it had to be a warning. But thanks to a recent software update, it looks like it is now possible to have custom disallow messages. I'd suggest the following changes:

Also see the private filters 68, 139, 648, and 651. They might need some changes, but I don't want to try to figure out which filter uses which warning. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:27, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

@Suffusion of Yellow: Thank you for creating this list! I have removed the warnings and adjusted the disallow messages for all the said filters. I did not modify any of the messages, though. MediaWiki:abusefilter-top100 in particular I think is fine... it may be a little bite-y, but it's not as bad it used to be!
Under principle I agree all disallow/warn messages should link to WP:EF/FP, but at least for a few of the filters there's a slim to no chance of false positives, such as 694. Anyway, I'll try to update them all soon, but anyone else should feel free to do it and not wait on me. Thanks again! MusikAnimal talk 22:48, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Phone spam (793)[edit]

Please add "1-855-479-2999" to this filter if it's technically possible. See contributions of User:Sabnampayal. Seems like this area of articles has some increased spam activity recently. PS: I figured simply naming these numbers here without technical details would be OK, but if you like I can also mail future numbers instead (?). Please feel free to delete this message, if it's not OK on this forum. GermanJoe (talk) 14:45, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

@GermanJoe: please post at WP:EFR. — xaosflux Talk 21:02, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip, @Xaosflux:. I wasn't entirely sure, if EFR was only for entirely new edit filters or also for edit filter changes. Will post there now. GermanJoe (talk) 21:31, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

478 too strict?[edit]

Please check this EF log where a new users tried to leave me a normal message but was blocked from doing so by filter 478 multiple times. It seems the filter is too strict and/or does not adequatly explain to new users why it's blocking edits. Regards SoWhy 20:41, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

This is hitting on the phrase (REDACTED admin only link)xaosflux Talk 20:56, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
@SoWhy: and looks like it has been in there for years, added by @NawlinWiki: in 2015. — xaosflux Talk 21:00, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out. That makes sense then. Regards SoWhy 21:15, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I really don't think that particular phrase should result in the edit not being allowed. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:54, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
    @NawlinWiki: any reason this should be kept? — xaosflux Talk 18:57, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
    Nawlin's not too active these days. I'll have a trim of the filter over the near future, including this thing. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:01, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Changes to 890[edit]

@The Anome: I'm trying to understand the purpose of these changes to filter 890. These new patterns seem to account for a large fraction of the recent hits. Yes, there are many obnoxious names in the log, but I don't see what's disruptive about Daffyduck123456, Hs01234567, Qwertysallybruns, Chris12345632, or Davidsqwerty. There also seem to be a few established users with names like these. These names certainly don't contain a "long sequence of apparently random or otherwise meaningless characters" nor are they particularly "difficult to type, search for, and remember". Or am I missing something? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:43, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I think you're right: while this was catching patterns of the "qwertyuiopsdfghjklzxcvbnm" variety (which is what I was aiming for), it was also catching too many false positives. I've backed the changes off. -- The Anome (talk) 14:54, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Block obvious open proxy edits[edit]

See [1]. Some troll has too much time on their hands and uses countless open proxies to spam the Teahouse with random generated nonsense featuring usernames. Any ideas on how to create a filter to prevent such edits? Regards SoWhy 13:12, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

@SoWhy: Hard to say without knowing what the content of the edits is (they appear to have been oversighted). More details about the content or edit summary would be useful. If that can't be posted here you can email the edit filter mailing list. Sam Walton (talk) 14:54, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
They've also spammed multiple user talk pages with the same deleted edits. See the list of pages here (permalink). theinstantmatrix (talk) 15:02, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
The edits basically consisted of creating a new section called "[some random text] username [more random, negative text]" filled with symbols using an open proxy in rapid succession. Regards SoWhy 15:23, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
It looks like Zzuuzz has something related at Special:AbuseFilter/940 (won't got into details here). Could the above information be incorporated to this filter? Sam Walton (talk) 10:21, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
I'll drop Sam an email in a bit. We have a throttle at filter 796 (the vandal knows this) which has been working fairly well for some time. A slight change in MO meant it missed some edits for a time yesterday, but that's been fixed. -- zzuuzz (talk) 10:29, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Upside down characters[edit]

I seem to recall a filter that would prevent edits containing unicode (?) letters that were similar, but not identical to actual letters. The closest I can find is 680, which prevents emojis. Any chance we could have one prevent upside-down characters, like in this thread? Sites like [2] make it easy to do. Home Lander (talk) 01:10, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Edit Filter 938[edit]

Things are getting out of hand; the user that 938 (and several other filters) was created to address has spread his actions out across all of Wikipedia now. He's basically attacking random pages at will, making it hard to track and stop. See [3] for one example, there's been dozens of these types of attacks just today. --Jayron32 15:58, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

filter 886[edit]

I'm not very confident about edit filters but I've been testing around in my testing filter (886) and it seems potentially effective without false positives (ignore before 2:50, 10 Nov UTC, I changed the filter). Would it be reasonable to move it into a disallow or throttle filter? (This is my first time doing this Face-smile.svg.) Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 09:12, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

@L235: one of your conditions is about 'moves' do you have a sample hit on that in your testing log? — xaosflux Talk 16:59, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
@Xaosflux: I've removed that condition – there was a lot of that kind of abuse before, but it seems to have largely subsided now. It still seems to be catching quite some disruption. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 23:27, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Moves are restricted to certain users. Anyway, see also 809 where this could be merged if necessary. BTW if someone can help resolve that filter (see recent changes) it would be appreciated. -- zzuuzz (talk) 04:33, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
I've now merged most of filter 886,[4] and hopefully nearly resolved the other issue with 809 in a less-than-ideal way. I'll leave it to you whether to fully merge the two filters and/or disable 886. I personally don't think a full merger would be trouble-free. -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:06, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Great work at the Reference desk. You're up all hours and it's much appreciated. One small point - I've checked the edit filter noticeboard as far back as December last year and there's no mention of either filter 796 or filter 941. Is this an oversight? When was filter 796 set to disallow? (talk) 14:54, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Oh, and could you unprotect the reference desk talk page, which is indefinitely protected at the moment? (talk) 14:56, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
It seems that 886 still catches edits that 809 doesn't and hasn't had false positives yet, and I agree that a full merge would cause problems, so I'm enabling it for now (set to throttle). Please feel free to revert if you disagree or if this is the incorrect process. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 23:32, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Taslimson spam[edit]

  1. Task: Prevent addition of "Taslimson" into articles
  2. Reason: Someone with multiple IPs have added a non-notable name to articles (usually Indonesian Americans [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] but also other articles e.g. here and here. The edits are straight-up spamming an unimportant name and a non-existent "foundation" all over the place, and is quite an annoyance at this point. At this point, there are absolutely no use (or media coverage outside blogs, see here) of the name in other contexts within Wikipedia beyond complaints about this vandal. Note that this filter has been requested six months ago, and at least four ANI notices [10] [11] [12] [13]. Juxlos (talk) 15:42, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
    Juxlos, weird as to the lack of replies in the earlier thread but this ought be very easily process-able, even as a de-novo filter.
    But am pretty certain that filters of this sort already exist and this can be punched. WBGconverse 15:58, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
@Winged Blades of Godric: Yeah, just that this seems to take a while in the response time department and would rather get it done before the mext set of vandalism. Juxlos (talk) 18:44, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
@Juxlos: please see WP:EFR to request or (re-request) new filters . — xaosflux Talk 15:53, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
@Xaosflux: Oops, my bad Juxlos (talk) 15:55, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
My mistake actually, I'm the one who pointed Juxlos to EFN. Oops! :) Ben · Salvidrim!  18:19, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Edit filter helper right for Suffusion of Yellow[edit]

There is 1 day, 10 hours, 21 minutes and 24 seconds until earliest closure. (refresh)

Well, I've been helping out at WP:EF/FP/R for the past few months, making edits for users who tripped filters, and pestering admins with suggested fixes. Some reports relating to private filters have been going unanswered, leading me to ping-spam every filter editor I can find in Special:log/abusefilter. If given this right, I'd be able to help these users myself, and only bother other people when the filter looks fixable. I'd also like to start helping out at WP:EF/R a bit, but without access to Special:AbuseFilter/test, it's difficult to come up with a good filter, except in trivial cases, where EFMs don't really need help. Of course, I understand the importance of account security (and security in general), and of not discussing the details of private filters in public. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:31, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, please. Suffusion of Yellow has been an enormous help. I believe I even suggested they seek management rights, but "helper" is certainly a good start. MusikAnimal talk 05:24, 19 November 2018 (UTC)