edit Filter/Requested

• Task: See Title.
• Reason: Vandalism phrase
• Diffs: Diff

Probably reasonable to add to either filter 225, 260 or 384. Nobody (talk) 08:43, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Might be worth it to add it to one of those filters, because it seems like it could be common enough but not legitimate at all. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 14:49, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
Probably could just be added with modification to 225, as that seems like the most relevant of the three, by adding to the end of line 3's string (included the last word in the code block for reference on where it probably should go), |(W|WANKA)KNIGHT|B+U+S+T|BUST A NUT"; . EggRoll97 ^(talk) 18:54, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
  Done EggRoll97 ^(talk) 23:58, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

• Task: See title
• Reason: This phrase is used exclusively for vandalism. It is being added by a wide variety of IP addresses across dozens of articles, and neither a range block nor page protection will solve the issue by itself. A simple range block would not work because the IP addresses known to have added this phrase include 110.54.190.201 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 110.54.191.52 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 122.3.45.189‎ (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 180.191.20.121 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 180.191.14.175 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 180.191.49.19‎ (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 180.191.36.77‎ (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 180.191.59.88 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 180.191.59.89 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and 202.60.12.123 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Page protection would not work because this is affecting dozens of articles, as seen in their contributions.
• Diffs: [1], [2], [3]

I think this could be added to filter 260. Epicgenius (talk) 14:41, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

At first glance, I'd say this looks like an LTA. Philipnelson99 (talk) 14:43, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
So I don't like the idea of adding it to Special:AbuseFilter/260. Philipnelson99 (talk) 14:45, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
"Marville City Rail" has no mentions in the search bar, so it could be added to a new LTA filter, with marville\bcity\brail. I also dislike the idea of adding it to a public filter like 260. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 14:48, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
Sounds good; I think it might be better as a private filter now that you mentioned it. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:59, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
I've sent an email regarding a new private filter to track this vandal to EggRoll97, which in turn they've forwarded it to the edit filter mailing list. Codename Noreste 🤔 talk 01:18, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

• Task: Simple, see created redirects without any rcats, tell the editor to add some rcats.
• Reason: Too many redirects without rcats.
• Diffs: I can add links if needed, but seems self explanatory.

~~~~ Geardona (talk to me?) 05:04, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

It might be useful for this to not be a in-the-face notice but rather a filter that passively tags edits, atleast as a start. Sohom (talk) 05:27, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Possibly through the following?

article_articleid == 0 &  (  article_namespace == 0 &  (   new_wikitext rlike "#REDIRECT" &   !new_wikitext rlike "(?i)(\{\{R from}\})"  ) ) 

I checked this through batch testing, it already matched two redirects created and didn't show any false positives for the 2 edits it matched. Probably best to start on a filter with no actions rather than straight to tagging. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 19:03, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Just to note that there are rcats/rcat redirects/rcat wrappers that don’t start with {{R from - e.g. {{avoided double redirect}}, {{NASTRO comment}}, {{television episode redirect handler}}. As an aside, should pages like Wiki talk:Redirect be notified of this proposal? All the best. ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 20:38, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Interesting, might just have to add those to a list, or change it to {{.*(Redirect|R from).*}}
Yes they should be notified Geardona (talk to me?) 21:28, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Tested that new condition, and it should work, with a modified proposed filter of:

article_articleid == 0 &  (  article_namespace == 0 &  (   rcats := "\{\{.*(redirect|r from|r to).*\}\}|\{\{NASTRO comment\}\}";    new_wikitext rlike "#REDIRECT" &   !new_wikitext irlike rcats  ) ) 

Verified against 3 different redirect creations, it matched each one. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 02:57, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Nice, if that is all for the filter work, I will inform the talk page for redirects. Geardona (talk to me?) 03:02, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
This would probably miss {{R to section}}. Sohom (talk) 03:09, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
It would, this will fix that
{{.*([Rr]edirect|R from|R to).*}} Geardona (talk to me?) 03:11, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Modified the one I just pasted in for easy review. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 04:26, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
I'm also editing the proposed filter syntax so everything can start uppercase or lowercase, not just 'redirect'. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 19:52, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Also adding NASTRO Comment as part of the functionality. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 19:57, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
There is a "irlike" for case insensitive matching. – 2804:F1...01:18F4 (talk) 00:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Yeah I will change that. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 00:53, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Implementing some more edits to the proposed filter to make it more efficient. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 01:38, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
@EggRoll97: would you mind implementing the filter and creating it as log only or maybe tag now that you are an EFM? 24.4.109.4 (talk) 00:31, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
@24.4.109.4: I'm doing so right now, just double-checking through batch for good measure, even for log only. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 00:32, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Ok great. 24.4.109.4 (talk) 00:37, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
This is now   Done as 1298 (hist · log) as log-only. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 00:38, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
@EggRoll97: You might want to change rcats := "\{\{.*(redirect|r from|r to).*\}\}|\{\{NASTRO comment\}\}"; into rcats := "\{\{.*(redirect|r from|r to|NASTRO comment).*\}\}" to condense the regex a bit more. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 01:02, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
@EggRoll97: Also, turns out article_articleid and article_namespace are deprecated: Rules format – 2804:F14:80EC:AB01:DD3F:A8CA:F653:DD84 (talk) 01:20, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

In addition, the filter's conditions should be the following:

page_id == 0 & (     page_namespace == 0 &     (         rcats := "\{\{.*(redirect|r from|r to|NASTRO comment).*\}\}";          new_wikitext rlike "#REDIRECT" &         !new_wikitext irlike rcats     ) ) 

One question: do we need the filter to log every single redirect creation without rcats, regardless if the user who created it is experienced or not? Codename Noreste 🤔 talk 01:26, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

We should. This is a mistake that even experienced users make sometimes. 24.4.109.4 (talk) 01:28, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Excuse me if this question comes across as rude, but who are you? I tried looking at the previous history of your IP, but it has been mostly vandalism. – 2804:F14:80EC:AB01:DD3F:A8CA:F653:DD84 (talk) 01:35, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
It’s perfectly fine to ask and no offense taken. I am just a regular IP, and if you look back to my edits from January, it will look more clear. My IP just changed sometime in February to a vandal. 24.4.109.4 (talk) 02:12, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
I've added in the regex and changed the deprecated variables out for page instead of article. As for user experience, it might be worthwhile to exclude bots, but other than that, it seems as though valid filter hits even occur on sysops, so given this is just a log-only filter, it may be best to keep it without exceptions for now. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 04:30, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
It might be worthwhile to add something like !("bot" in user_groups) but I know of no bot that creates redirect pages (though I could be mistaken as I don’t go into that part of Wikipedia often). – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 18:18, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Shouldn't the filter exclude exoerienced users? Every 10 minutes or so, one of the redirect creations are, and would be tagged with this. Any thoughts? Toadette ^{(Let's talk together!)} 21:21, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
@ToadetteEdit: No objections to limiting this a bit, though experienced users seem to be the main ones actually tripping this filter. If we limit it down to only new editors that are creating non-categorized redirects, there would indeed be a lower filter rate though, yes, though as far as I can tell the intent of the filter request was to catch all the uncategorized redirects. Will leave for feedback for a day or two before limiting though. Obligatory ping to @24.4.109.4, Codename Noreste, PharyngealImplosive7, and Geardona: as they were involved in creation. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 21:41, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Exempting bots should do, although experienced editors do make redirects but sometimes forget to add rcats. My redirect creation (La Sultana del Norte) to Monterrey counts as one. Codename Noreste 🤔 talk 21:44, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
I also believe that experienced editors should be included on this filter because they do forget to categorize their redirects. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 21:53, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
@EggRoll97: I believe that this would work well as a filter that tags edits also as most of the 500 ish edits triggered are non-FPs and it would work well to categorize such edits. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 21:56, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Also pinging another IP, @2804:F14:80EC:AB01:DD3F:A8CA:F653:DD84:, who was involved in creation. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 21:58, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Pinging IPs doesn't do anything btw, though you might already know that. I just helped with the syntax. I want to point out though, that @Geardona said "[..]tell the editor to add some rcats", which sounds like they want a warn filter - pretty sure that would require community consensus, in whatever forum is most appropriate(i.e. likely not here). Unless just logging is sufficient?
Also on the syntax thing again, it looks like there are still a few variations of rcats listed at WP:ALLRCATS that the filter wouldn't recognize, other "R word" variations. – 2804:F14:8090:C501:8CF5:7412:F217:B3C2 (talk) 22:54, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Would prefer a warning before saving, having a log would be fine as well. What other variations may need to be added? not sure about the community consensus bit, although WP:VPM, WP:VPR or WP:VPT might work Geardona (talk to me?) 22:59, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Looking at it now, what would the issue with doing {{.*R.*}} that should hit every possible redirect template, as long as it stays only on #redirect pages. Geardona (talk to me?) 23:07, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
{{R avoided double redirect}}, {{R mentioned in hatnote}}, some {{R ME ..}}(Middle-earth) ones, some {{R comics ..}} ones, {{R for convenience}}, {{R with possibilities}}, etc(?).
Might be better to just look for an r, yeah. – 2804:F1...17:B3C2 (talk) 23:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
True. I don’t think people would add other templates on a redirect page with r in them, and we shouldn’t forget about {{NASTRO comment}}. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 23:14, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
It would pick up the R in NASTRO so thats not a huge issue. Geardona (talk to me?) 23:17, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
I just realized that. See my next comment. I’m extremely worried about the amount of FPs though, as this will match huge numbers of different templates, many having nothing to do with rcats. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 23:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Except {{NASTRO comment}} has an r in it so it would be included too by the filter. The amount of FPs might be concerning in here though, so maybe .*\br\b.* and code for NASTRO comment should work and minimize the amount of FPs. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 23:18, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
False negatives, you mean? And I don't think so, though admittedly I haven't checked, how common is it for people to create a redirect with a template that includes an R that isn't an rcat? Also this isn't looking for abuse or anything, so presumably no one is going to try to bypass the filter. – 2804:F14:8090:C501:8CF5:7412:F217:B3C2 (talk) 23:21, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
That sounds good, is there a way to look for FP's using logging? Geardona (talk to me?) 23:21, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Yeah. Look through all the times the filter was triggered and see if you find a false positive or negative. It’s tedious but the only method I know of. If the amount of templates with r in them is small enough, the regex could always be changed to \{\{.*r.*\}\} but someone should check the logs to understand how many false negatives we’re going to be dealing with, telling us whether we need something generic or to specify every variation individually. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 23:39, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
All right, we should get the regex ready and tested before going to any of the village pumps, if someone could set that up so we could review it that would be great. (log only, no warning) Geardona (talk to me?) 23:42, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Having now properly read the thread, I see the filter. Geardona (talk to me?) 23:52, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
@Geardona: I think the main question to you, before I pinged you because I was sure you wanted a warn filter, was what you think of Toadette's question about making the filter not go off on extended-confirmed edits *experienced users, which EggRoll97 then pinged you about.
@PharyngealImplosive7: A false negative in this case, would be an edit that creates a redirect without an rcat, but that does not set off the filter, so there would be no logs to check. You would need to use a test filter or something to see if those edits even exist. – 2804:F14:8090:C501:8CF5:7412:F217:B3C2 (talk) 00:05, 6 April 2024 (UTC) *edited 00:14, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Oh I am sorry, I would say that theres no reason to keep it to new users/ip's as its supposed to be a filter that gets rcats on every single new redirect. (sorry, I clearly need to focus) Geardona (talk to me?) 00:09, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
I think that going through the list of rcat templates and seeing what doesn’t match the current regex, for example all the comic and middle earth templates could be the best thing us non EFMs can do. Otherwise an EFM could always use a test filter. My point about false positives and negatives still does stand though. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 00:19, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I'll try to summarize:
0. The filter created for this was 1298 (hist · log);
1. Toadette asked "Shouldn't the filter exclude exoerienced users?[..]"

Comment by Geardona about that above (Geardona is the one who suggested the filter);

2. EggRoll97 also commented on the possibility of excluding bots (2 people agreed with that);
3. There are more rcat variants listed in WP:ALLRCATS (examples: link);

On that end it might be possible to just match \{\{.*r.*\}\}, discussion ongoing;

4. I point out and asked that Geardona appears to be asking for a warn filter, Geardona confirmed that.

I'm pretty sure this would require community consensus, though Geardona wants the regex ready and tested before starting any discussion about that (no one else besides Geardona commented on this yet);

– 2804:F1...17:B3C2 (talk) 00:31, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

As PharyngealImplosive7 briefly commented on, is there actually a bot that creates redirects? – 2804:F1...17:B3C2 (talk) 00:45, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
I see a few, but they all use rcats. AnomieBOT and RussBot. Geardona (talk to me?) 00:50, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
I support excluding bots, but oppose adding a warning. Log-only seems to do the job well. Codename Noreste 🤔 talk 00:51, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Oh no, SoY is ranting again. Allow me to strenuously object to any sort of warning. Last night when I was bit tired, I decided to create a new redirect at maximal repeat. I usually don't bother with rcats, but this time I decided to do the "right" thing. It took me about five minutes to sift through the sea of tiny text at Template:R template index and figure that, no, even through I was redirecting from a phrase, the correct (?) template was {{r from related word}}. Or wait, was it {{r to related topic}}? Whatever, toss a coin. I can easily understand why people don't bother.
This is about edits that are unfinished, not harmful. A redirect without rcats is a net positive. A tagging filter is an excellent idea; it helps people who like categorizing redirects find the redirects to categorize. But a warning filter would be bitey to new users and irritating to experienced ones. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 00:57, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Yeah. Tagging would be a better idea in my opinion to. I also don’t categorize my redirects and sometimes it’s just annoying to find the correct category to use. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 01:17, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Also pinging @EggRoll97: as I’m sure they’re interested in the recent ideas for changing the filter by possibly making it more generic and making it exclude bots and tag edits passively. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 02:51, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Also not seeing any value in a warning filter. This filter is specifically designed to catch good-faith edits so someone else can come along and fix the redirect. I'm not a fan of tagging yet though until this whole idea of the r versus the current code is figured out. I did a couple of batch tests with that new \{\{.*r.*\}\} instead, and it seems to be working, but I'll hold off until the morning before I run it against a couple more edits and implement. Probably will go ahead and apply the tags at that point unless any objections arise overnight. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 05:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
As an update, tagging is now   Done and fully enabled as uncategorized-redirect . You can track changes in Special:RecentChanges as well as via the hit log for 1298 (hist · log). EggRoll97 ^(talk) 18:52, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
@EggRoll97: Would it be better to check if the user is a bot after you check if it's a new page in article space? I think currently it's always checking if every user doing any action is a bot, probably why the average conditions are now 1.9 instead of 1.
Also, unless bots are going to create a significant amount of redirects (and often), this check is probably pointless. – 2804:F14:8090:C501:5CC4:7D96:1106:13FE (talk) 21:36, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Looks like changes were made by Zzuuzz. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 01:35, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

• Task: Sure, memes and vandalism trends are done by autoconfirmed users sometimes, but there are some which never have encyclopedic value.
• Reason: Some memes and vandalism trends never have encyclopedic value, so this filter would catch and disallow those edits.
• Diffs: Special:Diff/1213282387
• Conditions: vandalism:="*nigg(er|a|ar)*";
action == "edit" & page_namespace == 0 & added_lines irlike vandalism & !page_title irlike vandalism
• Notes: Can be bypassed on certain pages because such language is sometimes necessary.

Faster than Thunder (talk | contributions) 17:31, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

There is alreadgy a general filter for vandalism. The diff you linked may actually be a legitimate edit. See Special:search/insource:niggardly. Philipnelson99 (talk) 17:50, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
As for the other terms your proposed filter would match. Special:AbuseFilter/384 handles those cases for non-confirmed users. Philipnelson99 (talk) 17:58, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Also chiming in to say this seems a bit unnecessary. The current filters, as far as I can tell, are doing the job well. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 19:14, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
I also agree with them that the proposed filter in this section is unnecessary, 260 also covers the job of preventing the N word slur as well. Codename Noreste 🤔 talk 19:43, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
I also think that this is not necessary. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 19:49, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
  Not done Does not seem to be necessary. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 00:39, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

• Task: Warn and possibly disallow users attempting to add "Danny Duncan" or "dannyduncan69.com" to articles
• Reason: Repeated addition of this non-notable YouTuber (per multiple AfDs) to articles, including recreations of his deleted article. I suspect this YouTuber (or one of his fans) is encouraging Wikipedia vandalism. One thing I will point out though is that this Forbes article establishes more WP:N than the subjects we cover in some articles have ever known, leading part of me to wonder if the AfD should be revisited.
• Diffs: See entire history of this page along with these edits to various articles (non-exhaustive list): [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19]

PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 03:44, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

If this type of trend continues, then maybe we should add this to filter 614. Codename Noreste 🤔 talk 20:29, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
This trend has been going on for several years, not sure why we would need to wait to add it. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 14:18, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Possible RegEx includes danny duncan and dannyduncan69\.com. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 01:17, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
PI7, the correction would be (?:daniel|danny) duncan|danny duncan69\.com, and I have tested the new regex under FilterDebugger. No false negatives or positives have happened. Codename Noreste 🤔 talk 18:21, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
@Codename Noreste: I think you may have made a mistake in the regex. The requester said that there isn’t any space in the website name that is being spammed, so correct me if I’m wrong but (?:daniel|danny)\bduncan|danny\b?duncan69\.com might work better, and allow all types of word-boundaries (if needed). – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 23:32, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Did you mean \s instead of \b there? The first \b can't match – it's between [ly] and d – and I've never seen \b? in the wild but logically it would have no effect. Certes (talk) 07:58, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Yeah. It should be (?:daniel|danny)\sduncan|danny\s?duncan69\.com. Thanks for correcting me. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 13:48, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

• Task: For the last few days I've found various IPs adding material about a Billy Flowers(see [20]) Examples are "(the Quora user who is a big rival of Billy Flowers}", "Billy Flowers, the world famous debunker of atheism, attended this university.", "He has engaged in debates with [https://www.quora.com/profile/Billy-Flowers-21 Billy Flowers before, such as when he created a YouTube video with a response to Billy Flowers's famous question about skydiving wit, h a Christian baby.", "* Billy Flowers  – (born 1990), the man who debunked atheism"," Billy Flowers  – (born 1990), the man who debunked atheism". See also the edit susmmaries, link to two IPs below.
• Reason: to block the spam
• Diffs: See [[21]]. Unfortunately I didn't keep samples from other IP addresses. ALso found [22].

Doug Weller talk 12:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Another IP. The usual plus a serious BLP violation. [[[Special:Contributions/70.33.148.202]] Doug Weller talk 20:46, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Maybe we should add this to 614 (hist · log), with the regex billy?\sflowers, but the amount of false positives might be high due to legitimate uses of the name, so I would suggest that we test this out first on log only in a test filter to see how common these edits are and if the amount of false positives is manageable. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 00:48, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
@PharyngealImplosive7 Now from Special:Contributions/70.33.148.202 Doug Weller talk 17:48, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Yeah. It’s clear to me at this point that this needs to be filtered. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 20:46, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
I've sent an email to the private abuse filter email list about this. Philipnelson99 (talk) 14:07, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. Doug Weller talk 14:15, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

• Task: Prevent addition of Skibidi Toilet-related words to articles.
• Reason: If you look in the filter log for edits blocked by filter "Memes and vandalism trends", a lot of them try to add "skibidi." This filter distinguishes users who trigger the "Memes and vandalism trends" filter who should be blocked from those that should be warned.
• Diffs: Look in the filter log for edits blocked by filter "Memes and vandalism trends".
• Code: !"extendedconfirmed" in user_groups & rmdoubles(ccnorm(added_lines)) rlike "skibidi" & !ccnorm(removed_lines) rlike "skibidi" & !page_title rlike "skibidi"
• Actions: Block

Faster than Thunder (talk | contributions) 17:37, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

@Faster than Thunder: This is already covered by 614 (hist · log). The edits are already disallowed, so what are you trying to do here? If you would like to block users adding it, that is not possible on enwiki. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 00:17, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
@Faster than Thunder: As stated above, this is already dealt with by 614 (hist · log). Further, for various reasons, we do not enable actions on filters until the filter is fine-tuned, and especially not blocking actions...? Finally, the ability to block users is also disabled as a restricted action per this Phabricator commit. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 23:38, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
I suspect the change they wanted was to make that part of the filter affect autoconfirmed users. They mention "If you look in the filter log for edits blocked by filter[..]"(emphasis mine), so I assume that's just another way of saying disallowed edits - but the one obvious change they do make is !"extendedconfirmed" in user_groups, currently the filter starts with !("confirmed" in user_groups).
No comments on the merits of the suggestion, or on if the start of that code would actually work(which I guess is a comment) – 2804:F1...53:DD84 (talk) 00:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

• Task: Prevents meme and vandalism trends
• Reason: Missing | between toilet and sigma causing it to not prevent “sigma” vandalism.
• Diffs: Special:Diff/1218047295

Nagol0929 (talk) 12:31, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

The issue here is that "sigma" has a lot of legitimate uses so we would need to see how many FPs are there first because it is used many times in articles like sigma, summation, and cross section, so maybe I'm wrong, but I think that was intentional. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 13:28, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
You're correct. Preventing editors from adding the word sigma would cause far too many FPs. Philipnelson99 (talk) 13:37, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
  Not done "sigma" has plenty of valid uses --DannyS712 (talk) 19:32, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
This part of 1297 (hist · log) ("Mixed-use words"), which I just set to tag, and am refining to the point where it can be set to disallow. It will not catch every addition, only those with a some other hints of vandalism. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:56, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Also added "what the sigma" to filter 614. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 01:26, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Following on from Wiki: Edit_filter/Requested/Archive_21#ScienceDirect_topics, per Wiki: Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_432#ScienceDirect_Topics_(AI-generated_pages), there is now clear consensus to implement an edit filter warning people against using Sciencedirect topics. Can this now be implemented? Thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:16, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

  Done ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:11, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
I've added it to the deprecated sources filter, as it's marked as deprecated at RSP and I think it's good to have our source-related filters limited to the deprecated subset as that's a streamlined community process. But I think the message in MediaWiki:abusefilter-warning-deprecated might be confusing to someone citing sciencedirect, at first glance very reliable in general.
I wonder if that message can be improved to indicate a) that it may not be the entire source that's deprecated, just a particular part of it; b) to have less focus on linking to RSN and more on "To see the restrictions that apply to this source and reasons, visit WP:RSP and find the relevant source in the list." ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:16, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
The is not going to be the last AI-generated source we want to stop. Maybe a separate filter for AI sources? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 01:31, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
I think that's a great idea @Suffusion of Yellow! Philipnelson99 (talk) 02:02, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
I also think that's a good idea. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 02:47, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

• Task: Preventing removal of dates from maintenance templates, except when also removing the template entirely.
• Reason: Dates are not meant to be removed from maintenance templates.
• Diffs: Special:Diff/1219740646 (add diffs as you see more such edits)
• Conditions: maintenance := "(Citation needed|merge|enumerate more maintenance templates here)"
temp := "(?i){{" + maintenance + "\|date=(January|February|March|April|May|June|July|August|September|October|November|December)*}}"
dateless := "{{" + maintenance + "}}"
!"confirmed" in user_groups & rcount(temp,new_wikitext) < rcount(temp,old_wikitext) & rcount(dateless,new_wikitext) = rcount(dateless,old_wikitext)

Faster than Thunder (talk | contributions) 16:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Is this a common problem? This doesn't seem worth a filter if it only happens occasionally. There's the general issue of people opening a page and removing all the parts they don't understand before getting down to editing, but that's probably more frequent with references and lead-section templates. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:02, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
The IP that made that edit also tried doing vandalism edits like these: log1, log2 and log3. Kind of puts all their other edits into question. – 143.208.238.228 (talk) 21:23, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
The inappropriate use of obscenities is the problem in the edits you brought up, but it is not the goal of my filter suggestion, which targets a different issue. Faster than Thunder (talk | contributions) 20:48, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
I was just pointing out that you picked an apparent vandal as your example of this happening. The point is that if you don't have any other examples then this could be a general issue like SoY says of people removing what they don't understand, but it could also just be one of this user's choice of vandalism - at which point maybe warning or blocking them would stop it from happening.
But I can't assume what it is, or that you don't have any other examples, so I just noted that the IP was trying to vandalise too. – 143.208.239.226 (talk) 02:52, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Maybe we could start the filter with no actions enabled first. If the number of edits caught by the filter is significant enough, then we should set the filter to disallow. Faster than Thunder (talk | contributions) 22:50, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Faster than Thunder, rather than edit_delta < 25 * rcount(temp,removed_lines), do you have another rule format to check the removal of dates in the {{Citation needed}} template? I tested your filter conditions under FilterDebugger and it only showed a check, meaning that there was no indication of the removal of the date, and the regular removed_lines rlike temp did not detect that removal at all.
Also, I'm a little bit hesitant to support the implementation if this only happens occasionally. Codename Noreste 🤔 La Suma 03:57, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Yeah I agree with you here. Filters should only be used when something problematic happens frequently enough to warrant an entire filter. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 13:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
I was saying that we should start the filter with no actions enabled first, then eventually decide whether to set the filter to disallow. Faster than Thunder (talk | contributions) 18:47, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
I think what me and the others mean is that there is no purpose to make a filter, even if it's only going to be log-only, if this isn't a common problem. And disallow filters to warrant having disallow need to have no other way but to stop the problematic action from happening at all. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 19:53, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
How do I use FilterDebugger to test a filter idea on an edit? I want to see if my idea works on the edit in question. Faster than Thunder (talk | contributions) 15:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Faster than Thunder, see User:Suffusion of Yellow/FilterDebugger#Installation. Codename Noreste 🤔 La Suma 18:38, 27 April 2024 (UTC)