Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested#Black Baboon

Since yesterday, I've blocked 35 new accounts of the form User:X is dead (including also a few "X is deceased" and "X is no longer with us"), on the assumption that they've all been created by the same person and are intended as sleepers (?). It seems likely I've missed at least as many more, also. It's getting very boring; should I start simply ignoring these accounts (they haven't made any edits so far), or might a filter be useful? Bishonen | tålk 19:12, 30 May 2025 (UTC).

:@Bishonen. Just in case you didn'tsee this. I'm not sure if this needs attention?. A lot of them were blocked but in the end it was decided not to report. Someone did suggest an edit filter on that thread. Knitsey (talk) 20:09, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

::No, I didn't see it, and unfortunately I don't now, as that's not a permanent link, Knitsey. (See Wikipedia:Simple diff and link guide for how to create permanent links.) But it looks like you have provided all the info I need, so nm. Bishonen | tålk 22:00, 30 May 2025 (UTC).

:::sorry Knitsey (talk) 22:24, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:If this is an LTA, then further discussion should continue on the mailing list. If they aren't making edits, I don't think that this is much of a problem personally, and WP:NOSALT applies here. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 21:29, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

• Task: Log edits meeting above criteria
• Reason: Editors have been adding maintenance tags in raw text instead of using the correct templates
• Diffs: Examples of fix: Special:Diff/1293287735, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AContributions&target=CX+Zoom&limit=74&offset=20250531211400 74 JWB edits]

I wish to log edits where editors add {{code|Wikipedia:}}, {{code|WP:}}, {{code|Help:}} (case insensitive) inside of {{code|}} to check the extent to which new editors use raw text instead of actual maintenance tags, and if a bot will be required for regular maintenance of this or not. Thanks! —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 21:35, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

• Task: Log (and possibly tag?) whenever the user adds a transclusion of a template that does not exist. Also, warn on certain edits. Warning all such edits would be far too bitey in my opinion. However, in my opinion, I think the following categories of edits would likely benefit from a warning. (Also, I think the warnings should mainly be restricted to mainspace or maybe talkspace; drafts and userpages should be free for now.) The categories of edits to warn could be, of course, adjusted once the filter is in.

:* Edits by IPs and new users. In many cases, these are vandalism.

:* Edits made in the mobile Wikipedia app. (Since it doesn't have a visual editor, it's incredibly easy to forget to close your curly braces; a warning would really help with this.)

:* Malformed citations (this could be detected by looking for the word "cite" or a URL in the title).

:* Nonexistent "country data" templates; these can arise from misuse of templates like {{tl|flag}} or {{tl|flagicon}}

:* Nonexistent WikiProject tags in talkspace (which could both arise from vandalism and from AWB mistakes).

:(One possible approach could be to pair a log-only filter, which catches all nonexistent templates, with a separate warn filter. This two-filter approach has been tried before, for example in {{abusefilter|1296}} and {{abusefilter|1297}}, so I don't see any reason why it wouldn't work here. Given the heterogeneity of these categories, it might be even better to have multiple warn filters, so we could show a different warning for each category.)

• Reason: For months upon months, I have been patrolling Wikipedia:Database reports/Transclusions of non-existent templates. While this work is fun, it is also very repetitive and time-consuming. I would love for an edit filter manager to (at least partially) automate my job away.

• Diffs: For some of these categories:

:* IP edits: Special:Diff/1293550819, Special:Diff/1293125755, Special:Diff/1293212733

:* Newer users: Special:Diff/1289697596, Special:Diff/1265724323

:* Malformed citations: Special:Diff/1288824615, Special:Diff/1291883754

:* Malformed WikiProject tags: Special:Diff/1293530431 (was vandalism), Special:Diff/1293267289 (was AWB but in good faith)

Duckmather (talk) 00:38, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:{{ping|Duckmather}} I'm commenting on the technical aspects here, to see if such a filter (or multiple) could exist. I'm not sure if the abusefilter can check whether a template exists or not; maybe it could check if a the text in a template exists (in the template namespace of course) using page_last_edit_age (if it's not null, then the page exists) but I'm not sure. The mobile app constraint is fairly easy to check (the AbuseFilter extension) has a variable user_app built into it for this exact purpose.

:I'm not sure if the "country data" thing is actually possible with an AbuseFilter - that would require crosschecking with whatever module supports those the {{tlx|flag}} and {{tlx|flagicon}} templates which isn't possible as far as I know. A similar issue occurs with the wikiproject tags issue you bring up; the AbuseFilter can not cross-reference a module as far as I know. I also don't think checking if someone has properly closed template brackets or otherwise is possible with the AbuseFilter in a feasible way; the logic would be pretty complex and would still produce a lot of FPs. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 03:50, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

::{{ping|PharyngealImplosive7}} The filter is in fact doable. The key idea is to use the new_html variable, which uses parsing to detect whether templates exist or not. For example, if I were to write {{fake example}}, this would translate into HTML as Template:Fake example. You could in turn detect this redlink using the regex . Of course, this line of code by itself would generate false positives, as wikilinking a nonexistent template the usual way will also produce identical HTML, so it would need some refining. But I don't see any fundamentally technical barriers preventing you from pulling this off. Duckmather (talk) 04:37, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

There's a fair bit of disruptive edit warring around Igboid and Ijaw languages and cultures, swapping them back and forth without sources. The most recent editor has been making edits primarily removing claims of Igbo heritage and inserting other ethnic names, most commonly Ijaw. {{diff|Ika language (Nigeria)|prev|1293645655}}{{diff|Ndoki tribe|prev|1293594804}}{{diff|Igbo language|prev|1293596896}} However, articles in this space have significant editing in the opposite direction as well, with some editors inserting claims of Igbo heritage into articles in the place of other ethnic groups. {{diff|Egbema tribe|prev|1251337244}}{{diff|Egbema tribe|prev|1281580391}}{{diff|Ekpeye people|prev|1293433412}}

!contains_any(user_groups, "extendedconfirmed", "sysop", "bot") &
page_namespace == 0 &
(
igbo_text := "\sigbo(?:id|land)?\s";
ijaw_text := "\sij(?:aw|o)\s";
edo_text := "\sedo(?:id)?\s";
sourcing := "\{\{[Cc]ite\b|(?i)]*?)?/?>";
rcount(sourcing, added_lines) <= rcount(sourcing, removed_lines) &
(
added_lines irlike igbo_text &
(removed_lines irlike ijaw_text | removed_lines irlike edo_text)
) ^
(
added_lines irlike ijaw_text &
(removed_lines irlike igbo_text | removed_lines irlike edo_text)
) ^
(
added_lines irlike edo_text &
(removed_lines irlike igbo_text | removed_lines irlike ijaw_text)
)
)

Not sure if this has been recommended before, but it's a pretty common vandalism pattern to just click "undo" on rollbacks/undos performed by tools like Twinkle, Huggle, RedWarn, etc. Is it worth considering a filter that would prevent new users from using the undo tool to reverse these edits? Ed (talk) 21:54, 3 June 2025 (UTC)