Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested/Archive 11#Blank request

• Task: The filter is supposed to stop/disallow the addition of the word "Megatron". It would apply to Meg Griffin and would prevent IPs and non-autoconfirmed accounts from adding or having anything to do with the word Megatron.
• Reason: This filter is needed because for the past several months, and is predictable vandalism. I don't know if anyone else has asked for this filter to be made, I know I haven't. Thanks, z'L3X1 (distænt write) 01:54, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
• {{EFR|defer}}: {{ping|L3X1}} Filters are applied to all edits. Therefore, problematic changes that apply to a single page are likely not suitable for an edit filter. A more appropriate venue for this request is WP:RFPP. Nihlus 08:07, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

• Task: Talk pages. Warn and possibly tag edits by people who submit blank edit requests.
• Reason: Sometimes(not sure of the exact amount) edit requests by users contain nothing about what they want done- just the edit request template and their user signature. It might be useful to remind them to add a reason, in case of an accidental blank submission. Sakura Cartelet ^Talk 00:46, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
• :{{ping|Sakura Cartelet}} I really don't see a point to creating a filter for this. The process for submitting an edit request is slightly convoluted by itself, so it would be best to improve the template, like I have attempted, rather than convolute the process further. Nihlus 16:10, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

::Well I thought it might be useful, but if you people think it won't then I guess this request can be closed then? Sakura Cartelet ^Talk 20:34, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

• Task: Trigger a log entry and prevent editing with a warning, similar to for {{Edit filter|803}}
• Reason: Typical example: {{diff|User_talk:Widr|791501868}}
• Details:

It is not rare for vandalism to be made at the top, or near the top of talk pages. Since talk pages are usually used for communication, it would be impractical to have a filter as strict as 803, but a variant preventing editing before the first blank line (unless the talk page is empty) may be useful. Archiving bots ignore talk page header templates too (other than their own configuration options). It would make sense for other users not to be able to edit those templates and configurations too... Also imagine a case of a semi-active editor who only realizes after unexpected bot actions as a result of misconfiguration. It seems that some non-newbies do not manage to remove vandalism or misplaced comments when they occur before or within their talk page headers (mobile or visual editor restrictions perhaps?), see {{diff|User_talk:Kagundu|790097356|786568279}} which was there since 28 April. Obviously, archive bots would also never archive those. I even thought of preventing any edit to user talk pages by non-autoconfirmed users when not at the bottom, but this would prevent answering to existing threads and may not be welcoming to new users who often misplace comments. —PaleoNeonate - 18:29, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

:Sorry for the late reply. I can say from experience that a lot of new users add their comments to the top of the talk page, simply because they don't know any better. For this reason I would recommend against getting a filter involved. Talk pages are sensitive -- folks need to be able to communicate without barriers. Additionally, it wouldn't be trivial (or cheap) to implement regex that correctly checks that the talk page header templates were modified. In rare cases this might actually be constructive. Finally, user talk edits are very frequent so the expense of the filter may outweigh the benefits. Overall I will have to suggest that this be {{declined}} unless we can show there is a frequent and easily detectable problem — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:35, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.jpg

Filter 812 recently let no less than five pages have 2.7 million bytes of nonsense added to them. We need a new filter, because 812 is going to have to be terminated. Could we hurry up before {{u|Hatebread}} figures out he can do this and not get filtered out? (Especially since he was recently blocked globally forever due to sockpuppeting!)TomBarker23 (talk) 10:57, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

:{{re|TomBarker23}} The issue isn't with any specific filter. It's in general with the AbuseFilter system. If you'd take a look at the Phabricator ticket MA supplied, it mentions that "the variables AbuseFilter supplies are incorrect, or it's reading the data in the wrong way, something related to the variables." This means that edit_delta had a mishandled check regarding the bytes added. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 12:47, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

::{{declined}} Yes, it appears it is a bug. What's semi-comforting is the edits you speak of are the same that were originally reported, leading that Phab task to be created. So maybe, just maybe, that bug has subsided, but I've grown to be skeptical. I know the Anti-Harassment Tools Team is working on various AbuseFilter bugs and features, so I'm hopeful things will be more stable soon — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:27, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

WP:ACTRIAL has curtailed the efforts of undisclosed paid editors using throwaway accounts to create new articles, but some have already worked out that it is possible to start in draft space and then move it without being autoconfirmed e.g. these all in the last week: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Loren&diff=prev&oldid=805829834] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Green_Spaces&diff=prev&oldid=806202029] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cruise_Planners&diff=prev&oldid=805896886]. It'd be helpful if we could log all the moves by new users from draft > article space to get an idea of how commonly this is being used. SmartSE (talk) 19:07, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

:{{Re|Smartse}} According to Wikipedia:User access levels, you have to be autoconfirmed to move pages anywhere. These three accounts each have more than 10 edits. -- John of Reading (talk) 19:44, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

::{{Re|John of Reading}} Hmm. Thanks for pointing that out! I've changed the title accordingly. Rather than unconfirmed then, could we just log it for any accounts < 50 edits? SmartSE (talk) 19:48, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

:::I'd support making this like filter 867 and just have it as non-extended confirmed. That way we'll catch any sleeper accounts that had been left to do minor edits over time. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:51, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

::::Filter 867 is for non-extended confirmed. This is an easy filter to create, and one I would support. I'm just surprised this wasn't brought up in the WP:ACTRIAL discussions. Nihlus 20:15, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

:::::Other filters were brought up, which I won't discuss here for BEANS reasons, but it was decided to wait to see if there was a preferred method for gaming ACTRIAL. Filter 867 deals with one of the methods of gaming it, but moves from draft space outside of the AfC process also seem to be a method. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:AbuseFilter/630 Filter 630] tracks moves by new users out of userspace? It might be worth simply updating that one to be moves from non-extended confirmed users out of draft or userspace. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:19, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

::::::There's 5. 850 is also similar. Nihlus 20:26, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

:::::::630 looks to me like it'd be the easiest one to adapt. SmartSE (talk) 12:46, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

::::::::5 and 850 are targeted toward other things, namely users attempting to do things that look like the right way to accomplish a task but are not. Whichever one that adds the "new user moving a page out of the userspace" tag is probably the best thing to adapt. – Train2104 (t • c) 23:35, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

{{od}} It should honestly be its own filter, which is why I said the others were similar. It's an easy filter to write, it's just a matter of approval and getting it done. Nihlus 23:44, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

• Task: Add the word "mouse" to be filtered from the entire Craig David article.
• Reason: Occasional vandalism which began in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Craig_David&action=historysubmit&type=revision&diff=677790381&oldid=677498408 August 2015] from a Twitter user who likes announcing what he does. Turned out to be quite persistent with it in September 2015 also. Did the same [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Craig_David&action=historysubmit&type=revision&diff=809148813&oldid=806916352 today]. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:00, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

:{{EFR|defer}} {{ping|Mac Dreamstate}} This is not at the level of needing an edit filter. Please seek out and try alternative methods (such as WP:RFPP) before requesting a filter. Thanks. Nihlus 19:04, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

::Lame. It seemed simple enough, but maybe I was thinking too much along the lines of Internet forum filters.. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:07, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I presume there are already edit filters aimed at this, but please see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:%22%27&diff=810434615&oldid=810434369&unhide=1 this edit]_{(admins only I'm afraid)} made today to {{tl|"'}} which caused a highly visible notice to be displayed on around 500 highly trafficked pages causing confusion amongst readers: [https://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia/comments/7d3uh6/uh_was_this_page_hacked_or_something/] [http://www.ibtimes.com/wikipedia-hack-targets-buzzfeed-reporter-who-exposed-hedge-fund-billionaires-alt-2614912]. It isn't the first time this vandal has struck, and it shouldn't be difficult to catch with the edit filter. SmartSE (talk) 16:59, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

:FWIW, Special:AbuseFilter/139 should have caught this, but didn't due to [https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T175933 a known issue] -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 17:01, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

::Ah ok then. I guess this can be ignored. SmartSE (talk) 17:12, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

• Task: An edit filter could disallow the addition of the text 571886/6886, on all pages, by IP users.
• Reason: Hello. I have noticed that one or several IP users are adding the text 571886/6886 on several Wikimedia projects (without being active long enough to start a discussion) since at least March 2017. I have requested a global abuse filter (meta:Vandalism reports#A filter for the text 571886/6886) but I was unaware that the English Wikipedia was not covered by global abuse filters. My request for the global abuse filter contains details and IP, but you can find many other IP just by searching 571886/6886 in the summaries of edits by 105.102.0.0/16, 105.100.0.0/16, 105.235.0.0/16, 105.99.0.0/16... Regards --NicoScribe (talk) 14:09, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I would like to propose a Warn filter for the following websites in main and talk namespace:

• angelfire.com / angelfire.lycos.com
• tripod.com / tripod.lycos.com

Both are frequently linked, and most of these are either proposed or actual references failing WP:SPS and WP:RS. As a kindness to editors, I'd like to see a warning and positive action before allowing these to be added or proposed as sources, rather than having to revert them. Guy (Help!) 21:21, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

• Task: Prevent new editors, and tag and warn not-new editors, if they try to (1) edit a closed AFD page, (2) edit a closed MFD page, or (3) modify text inside the close tags for a closed XFD of any other type. Make exceptions, of course, for adding the DRV template and unclosing the discussion.
• Reason: Closed discussions are supposed to remain permanently unchanged, unless you're reopening or challenging them, and an old XFD is a good vandalism target ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Charlie_Zelenoff&action=history], closed in 2009, is why this is coming to my mind right now), partly because people don't often pay attention to them. Unless adding a new filter for this purpose is misuse of resources, we ought to have a way to catch these edits. Nyttend (talk) 14:25, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

::{{ping|Nyttend}} Late response, sorry, but how would protection for problematic cases not be sufficient to combat this? Is this something that is so widespread that it can't be dealt with on a case-by-case basis? Nihlus 09:04, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

::: As an aside, it might actually be worth discussion at WP:AN whether we should courtesy blank and protect closed AfDs for BLPs. Guy (Help!) 09:33, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

::::Yeah, I'm thinking there is a solution for this somewhere, but I'm not sure the edit filter is it. Nihlus 09:43, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

:::::How in the world are we supposed to know that this 2009 discussion would get hit eight years later? The only way to prevent such vandalism with protection is mass-protecting XFDs. It also wouldn't work with closed discussions on still-open pages, e.g. an FFD. And protection would make it impossible simply to reopen a discussion or to take it to DRV. Nyttend (talk) 12:52, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

:::::: Admin bot run to protect XFD closed more than 30 days? Guy (Help!) 11:41, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

• Task: Warn users who are including predatory open access journals as citations in articles.

: Match: 10.(4172|4236|5897|11648) in DOI parameter of any citation template

: Regex is probably (?i)doi[ ]*=[ ]*10[.](4172|4236|5897|11648)

• Reason: Continual good-faith addition of material sourced to predatory open access journals. I remove these almost daily. Guy (Help!) 08:48, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

::{{ping|JzG}} As someone who is unfamiliar with this, how are these journals predatory? Is there a discussion about these journals somewhere on the wiki? Also, can you provide some examples as to how frequent this is? Finally, would a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=insource%3A%2Fdoi%5Cs%2A%3F%3D%5Cs%2A%3F10%5C.%284172%7C4236%7C5897%7C11648%29%2F&title=Special:Search&profile=default&fulltext=1&searchToken=dfldiajgryo1puhg0micfq90d search] be sufficient in finding them and removing them? Thanks! Nihlus 09:11, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

::: I cranked up my regex-fu and built filter 891. So: I have now linked predatory open access, which may help (my bad). You can also see discussions at WP:RSN, e.g. {{section link|Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 233|Predatory publishers, fake conferences and academics who find them a way to succeed}}. These journals are identified in the canonical reference on predatory journals, Beall's list. They are also not listed in the Directory of Open Access Journals. There are also numerous independent commentaries on them, and in the case of OMICS, also a long term abuse case, a global ban on all OMICS employees, and an ongoing case by the Federal Trade Commission. I can search for them, and I do that regularly, but every time I find new cites, which is why a filter is needed. Users are, in good faith, adding sources that I then have to go and remove because they are known to be unreliable. Guy (Help!) 09:27, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

::I agree with Nihlus that I'd like to see something more than the one bullet point at WP:SCHOLARSHIP before resorting to edit filters. – Train2104 (t • c) 12:46, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

::: This has been the subject of numerous discussions at RSN and elsewhere. most recently [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_233#Predatory_publishers,_fake_conferences_and_academics_who_find_them_a_way_to_succeed]. Guy (Help!) 11:40, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

There is no reason why we should not at least monitor this (as we start of like that anyway): Special:AbuseFilter/893. I am not opposed to 'friendly' warning afterwards. Heck, I am not even opposed to a harsher setting on XLinkBot for this. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:51, 6 December 2017 (UTC) Will delete .. thanks User:Nihlus, it was hidden in the text. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:10, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

:{{ping|Beetstra}} This was already created at Special:AbuseFilter/891. Nihlus 11:55, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

:{{ec}} {{ping|Beetstra}} There's Special:AbuseFilter/891 (see above) already, so I think Special:AbuseFilter/893 might be redundant if I understand right. Κσυπ Cyp   11:59, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

• Task: Add "my hero" as a filter to the article.
• Reason: Very persistent vandalism since July, by an IP from Finland, who keeps adding that string. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 20:53, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

::{{EFR|denied}} Thanks for the suggestion {{u|Mac Dreamstate}}, but this isn't really at a level where an abuse filter is appropriate (similar to what Nihlus said at this request). Edit filters are used for widespread or especially damaging edits -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 21:11, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

• Task: Prevent new accounts from registering with "919929669787" in their username
• Reason: "919929669787" is almost always used by an LTA spammer, and as far as I know, an edit filter like this does not yet exist. Hastiness (talk) 16:30, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Defer to Global blacklist. The title backlist is used to blacklist usernames, not edit filters. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:09, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

• Task: Prevent users from creating accounts with "Password" in their username.
• Reason: Most accounts with "Password" in their username have usernames like "Thepasswordforthisaccountis"foobar123"" or something like that. Normally, the specified password is the actual password for the account, thus making the account a compromised account. Hastiness (talk) 19:54, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Defer to Global blacklist. The title backlist is used to blacklist usernames, not edit filters. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:12, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Re-activating a request by Doug Weller from way back when:

• Task: Tag articles where sources are added where the publisher is one of a number of well-known self-publishing companies such as AuthorHouse (at times called Author House), Trafford Publishing, iUniverse, Xulon Lulu.com and Xlibris, sometimes cited as Xlibris/Random House.
• Reason: These sources should generally (but not always) not be used per WP:SPS but many editors are unaware of this or that the source is self-published. Flagging such additions would aid editors who are watching the relevant articles.

Since this request was made, the problem has continued to grow. We have literally thousands of references to self-published books on lulu.com, a substantial proportion of whihc turn out to have been added by the author, and very few of which are actually reliable sources. I have removed several hundred, of which exactly two have subsequently been agreed to be RS. Guy (Help!) 11:50, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

:*Testing on 861 (q.v.), trying to keep it cheap. Crow^Caw 18:08, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

::*{{ping|JzG}}[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:AbuseLog?wpSearchUser=&wpSearchTitle=&wpSearchFilter=861] Seems to be catching what's intended. There's a few vandalism reverts that make it look like a user is adding that text, but if the intent is merely to tag then this looks mostly ready for prime time. Last step is for someone who speaks Phabricator to request the tag per WP:EFTAGS. Crow^Caw 21:13, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

:::: {{ping|Crow}} Splendid work, sir! I'd like to have a warning as well, if possible, to help good faith editors to avoid accidentally including unreliable sources. Guy (Help!) 21:58, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Strongest possible oppose: The companies in question are not publishers in the traditional sense, they are simply printers. As such they often reprint older works that no one would question for a second - the book is fine if it comes from Springer but should be tagged when reprinted by Lulu? What madness is that?

Sure, a lot of crap gets printed by these printers. But Sturgeon put it, 90% of everything is crap. This proposal suggests we should throw out the 10% because of the rest. And better yet, it proposes doing it with a bot process, so that 10% will never even be checked.

What's equally worrying is that the proposal is actually talking about SPS and COI, which are real concerns we should all have, but intends to fix that by complaining about the source. If you see COI, tag the COI. What possible service does another tag do when we already have one that actually tells you what the problem is? Maury Markowitz (talk) 03:33, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

:*Hi {{u|Maury Markowitz}}, I share your concerns, but do note that the articles won't be tagged as in the "big ugly badge of shame article tag" but rather just the edit itself will be logged with an edit summary tag (just look at random edit summaries in Special:RecentChanges for the sorts of tags I mean) and in the edit filter log. Probably just a tag that says "Possible Self Published Source Added". Likewise not a single edit will be prevented by this, so we're most certainly not trying to throw out the proverbial good 10%. All that this will do is assist in finding the occasions where possibly unreliable sources have been added, so that an actual human (not a bot taking unilateral action) can review the addition and see if it was just a case of a publisher printing an obscure book, or whether it was indeed a vanity publish or other not-so-reliable source. So to your point, this will help identify additions that previously escaped detection so we can indeed "tag it if we see it". I hope this clears things up! Crow^Caw 23:51, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

:::Riiight, "review the addition"... like they don't do now? An SPS tag is reason enough for lots of editors to remove content and the wikilawyer if you try to re-add it. An edit summary will be different?

:::Look, I get it, you think this is a good idea. Fine, A-B test it. Turn it on for 10% the users and then we'll meet back here in a year and review. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:40, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

:::*You are likely correct on the wikilawyering of the tag ("the tag says so!"), so perhaps those who wish to monitor this can simply keep a link to the filter's log? That would probably be more useful, as the Examine link it provides will better show the suspect additions. Since theoe sources don't guarantee a problem, this would further keep it subtle. I don't know, I'm just the implementer here, and protecting the 10% is primary... first do no harm, and all. {{ping|JzG}} your thoughts? Crow^Caw 16:21, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

::::: Seeing a fair few hits, mainly Xlibris and Lulu, and not getting challenges when removing them so far. Guy (Help!) 16:30, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

:::::*{{ping|JzG}} This filter is now moved from the temporary test filter to 894. New log link: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:AbuseLog?wpSearchUser=&wpSearchTitle=&wpSearchFilter=894] Crow^Caw 17:57, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

::::::: Thanks, {{ping|Crow}}. Guy (Help!) 23:25, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I think there might be merit in tagging (using separate tags) the addition of AfD, PROD or CSD templates to an article. Often there are prior deletion attempts in history; it would be useful to automate the process of bringing these to the attention of anyone looking to add a template through twinkle or whatever ,and the obvious (to me) way of doing this is a tag. What do others think? Guy (Help!) 14:57, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Is there ANYTHING that can be done to stop the recent ANI disruption? It has been semi-protected and extended-protected numerous times over the past few days thanks to throwaway socks, and CU wouldn't help in this case. May need a filter. —MRD2014 ^Talk 20:27, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

:I support this, because the user who first got ANI protected in the first place has been causing absolute chaos. I think a filter ought to be necessary. TomBarker23 (talk) 14:51, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

::Looks like {{noping|Zzuuzz}} has created Special:AbuseFilter/896. —MRD2014 ^Talk 02:36, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

• Discussion Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Non_breaking_spaces
• Phab ticket [https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T183647]

The edit filter would only need to look at edits made by VE. You can see an example of the hidden spaces being added [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Septic_arthritis&type=revision&diff=817270489&oldid=816873518 here]. They are turned to visible here via WikEd.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Septic_arthritis&diff=next&oldid=817270489] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:39, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• Task: Add a tag to all edits to articles that insert U+00A0 characters (non-breaking space).
• Reason: Many cases have been identified where something is routinely inserting these characters and a tag would allow investigation and prevention. The filter may be needed only for a week in order to gather evidence. Johnuniq (talk) 09:47, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
• The edits that result in problems are usually only by a certain type of editor, specifically students. The reason is that students often take parts of articles and copy them to their sandboxes were they work on them. Once they have made a bunch of changes they than copy the content back to the article in question. Thus this edit filter is mostly needed when classes are nearing the end of their efforts and copying back content. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:50, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
• Why are we going to be bothering editors with this problem ? How are they supposed to go fix it, without losing their edit ? It's a goddamn cosmetic problem. We can't even run bots to deal with cosmetic problem and now we are going to scare away users over it ? —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 10:05, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
• User:TheDJ We are discussing a tag to identify this issue, not necessarily blocking the edits in question. One question is how common is this problem?
• Apologies for misinterpreting. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:00, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
• User:Matma Rex appear to be stating that this is not a VE problem. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:17, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
• FWIW [https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T183647#3886207 the underlying bug has been resolved]. Best, Elitre (WMF) (talk) 19:04, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

• Task: Stop Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Catcreekcitycouncil vandalism.
• Reason: This has come up twice before; the first time, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_filter/Requested/Archive_8#Lions_at_Cat_Creek two years ago], it was dismissed as premature; the second time, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_filter/Requested/Archive_9#Cat_Creek_Lion_filter last year], it was archived as being worked on. Has any progress been made? Because the socker/sockfarm has returned yet again, and by all indications this is one of the "they are never going to go away" cases, and even if Cat Creek, Montana is kept under permament ECP, they have demonstrated that they will add their trolling to other 'cat creek'-named pages, other Montana pages, and sometimes entirely unrelated pages; the only way this is going to be stopped is through (possibly aggressive) filtering.

:Assuming there isn't something ready for immediate deployment, I would suggest somehow filtering:

• changing of "mountain lion" to "lion/s". (as demonstrated on their most recent return (revdel'd per WP:DENY): [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cat_Creek,_Montana&diff=818714781&oldid=815150409]). If a filter can be set to a single page, this could be set to only the main target page, as it's potentially the "broadest" of the needed filtering settings.
• addition of "lion/s"+"cat creek" to all pages.
• addition of "lion/s"+"montana" to all pages.

:Thanks. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:23, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

::As I did in the first request, I'd support this filter. It's hard to believe this person is still active, but their perseveration seems strong. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:30, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

:::{{ping|The Bushranger|EvergreenFir}} We already have filters 547 and 849 (both currently disabled). Those could probably be adjusted to stop the recent vandalism. —MRD2014 ^Talk 13:40, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

::::{{re|MRD2014}} I cannot view those, but enabling them would be appreciated. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:11, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

:::::That should hopefully help. However, I'm not an EFM so I can't enable it. We'd have to ask an EFM. I'm not an admin either. —MRD2014 ^Talk 19:44, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

::::::Hm, the first of those might need (significant?) refinement - there hasn't been roaring in awhile - and was disabled for being too expensive (in server load, I imagine). The second one only logs usernames. Those would help, certainly, but honestly what is needed is a hard filter stopping the additions mentioned above, because it's blatantly obvious this is being done for the jollies and any attention, even "being one-click reverted", is enough reward for them to keep going. . - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:27, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

::::::*Can someone email me the revdels in question, and I'll have a go? Crow^Caw 16:34, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

:::::::*Well the main page has been ECP'd now. The other pages they hit (see the LTA page) should still have examples "free", although they mix up the wording a fair bit. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:12, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

It would be great if a filter could trip whenever someone creates an ANI thread like [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=821905228] with the heading ":User:ClueBot NG is malfunctioning". It's a trademark behavior of {{noping|WikiVandal}}. Home Lander (talk) 18:34, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

• Task: Stop additions of "Meg Maheu" and False Alarm
• Reason: See [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=822458906#Rangeblock_for_Meg_Maheu? this] NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:18, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

:*Added Meg Maheu. Adding False Alarm will probably cause, well, false alarms, so just her for the moment. Added to 871. Crow^Caw 21:01, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

::*{{u|Crow}}, thank you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:53, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

• Task: Prevent all article edits containing the phrase "Joe Walz".
• Reason: While the sockpuppet investigation a little less than a year ago (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/GeraldFord1980/Archive) caught a number of sockpuppet accounts associated with the user GeraldFord1980, this troll continues to edit from a dynamic set of IPs and to insert "Joe Walz" vandalism/gibberish on a wide range of articles. Examples from just the last few days include [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Wonder_Years&type=revision&diff=820486770&oldid=820425061], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edgar_Ray_Killen&type=revision&diff=820492281&oldid=820415756], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Defecation_postures&diff=820595803&oldid=813126774], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tarana_Burke&diff=prev&oldid=820614276], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Music_%26_the_Spoken_Word&type=revision&diff=820089387&oldid=816993691], etc - but essentially ever since the SPI the vandalism has been fairly consistent. Another editor recently raised concerns about the troll here and the suggestion was given to seek an edit filter since 99% of the vandalism contains "Joe Walz". Two things make this troll particularly difficult. First, the dynamic IPs (I've identified ~70 used so far) makes it impossible for a range block to work effectively and has resulted in a number of reports to WP:AIV, often without the reporting editor or responding admin realizing the long-term abuse context. Second, in many of the edits the troll will copy a reference from earlier in the article into the edit to give it the appearance of legitimacy. A cursory review that only looks for the existence of a citation would let such vandalism pass. Thanks. --FyzixFighter (talk) 01:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

:*Added to 871. Crow^Caw 20:50, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

::* Thank you. Would it be possible to also include the phrase "Joey Walz"? As somewhat expected, the troll modified his behavior but only slightly, see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paprika&diff=prev&oldid=823224590] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brigham_Young_University%E2%80%93Idaho&diff=prev&oldid=823077660]. --FyzixFighter (talk) 00:43, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

:::*Added that, too. Κσυπ Cyp   07:16, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

• Task: Prevent addition of the string "34807778346", ideally including variants with punctuation.
• Reason: vandalism on unrelated pages. Covers multiple IP ranges, namespaces and wikis. Examples: {{diff|MSISDN|prev|821299163|IPv4}}, {{diff|Epic_(web_browser)|prev|822995963|IPv6}}, {{diff|Cryptosystem|prev|819989595|punctuated}}, {{diff|Wikipedia:Milestones|prev|817284569|WP:}}, [https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Science&diff=5948701&oldid=5916324 Simple]. Certes (talk) 10:55, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

:To clarify: it's obviously not worth wasting a whole filter on this trivial case, but if it can be added cheaply to an existing list of naughty words either permanently or temporarily then that might put the vandal off. Certes (talk) 18:01, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

:*Looking for an appropriate one. Not sure what the significance of that number is, but it shows up in many WMF projects beyond here and simple... Crow^Caw 19:18, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

::*Added to 260. Crow^Caw 19:25, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

:::Thank you, {{u|Crow}}. It's the right length for a +34 807... Spanish premium rate phone service, but I won't be dialling to find out. Certes (talk) 19:51, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

::::{{ping|Crow}} Could you also do something similar with the number 9650073658? It's being spammed by a sockpuppeteer (see SPI case). Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:55, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

:::::Ok, added to 260, too. Κσυπ Cyp   16:21, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

• Task Automatically revert any instance of "Richard Madenfort"

• Reason: Serial hoaxster, insisting that he played on several albums over the years despite no proof whatsoever. See [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=828080557 (section WP:DUCK vandalism; it won't let me permalink the section) and Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive935#Richard_Madenfort,_Rick_Marty_adding_himself_to_many_music_articles_by_way_of_socks_and_IPs. Edits may also include "Rick Marty" or "also credited as Reggie Bradley on some releases". Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:27, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

:*Added to 260. Rick Marty may throw FPs as part of a list, so watching for that. The other strings don't appear in that order currently anywhere, so should be ok, though watching for FPs too. Crow^Caw 16:49, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

::"Richard Madenfort" does pop up from time to time, including on Lee Brice (album) just a couple weeks ago. Would it be possible to prevent it from being re-added? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:52, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

::*It will be blocked when attempted. I just meant that that name doesn't seem to appear legitimately, so blocking it should have low false-positives. Same with Reggie Bradley. All 3 are flagged to be disallowed. Crow^Caw 17:01, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

• Task: Stop user talk page vandalism. and article vandalism from floating ip User talk pages and articles. Anon's if possible. All users otherwise.
• Reason: Just revdel'd this from a floating IP on a user talk page. --Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:37, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
• :[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clock&type=revision&diff=828023875&oldid=828023255 this edit, for instance]

:*Added to 58. Crow^Caw 18:40, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

• Task: phab:T188865 support
• Reason: Can cause rendered page to obscure other edits.

Hey {{ping|MusikAnimal}} maybe--- and FYI to {{re|Cyberpower678}} take a look at phab:T188865 - think we can do this cheap enough? (Inspect ALL summaries, counting the number of characters in range, possibly in a sequence)? — xaosflux ^Talk 00:15, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

:I imagine a filter for this is doable, but have we observed any actual disruption beyond those test edits? — MusikAnimal ^talk 04:31, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

::{{re|MusikAnimal}} mostly wanted to look for some options - maybe mock something up on testwiki if you have a min. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:50, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

:::Something like rcount("[start-end]", summary) > 5 might work, where start and end is the range of the characters, and 5 is some arbitrary limit, or maybe summary irlike "[start-end]{5,}" (only counting when the characters are adjacent to one another). If we wanted to prevent it I would use CSS, since this seems chiefly to be a display issue, and not inherently wrong (though this "character stacking" could certainly be abused). — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:53, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

• Task: Block javascript advertising code, as removed {{diff|Holi|824761363|824761319|here}}
• Reason: Prevention of spam (and malware?). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:39, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

:*Would it be better to add the ad link to the blacklist? Or a related question for those more experienced: is there ever a valid reason for a user to add