• 21 Aug, 2019

• By, Wikipedia

Foo <autoconfirmed|noedit|errmsg=blacklisted-testpage> 
Bar #No one should create article about it

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

After a unanimous vote for deletion. The same author of the deleted page has started recreating the same content in different titles. Ahri Boy (talk) 01:48, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also at WP:ANI#User continually recreating salted page at different titles (permalink). Three titles, by a single user (currently blocked from creating pages), over a period of just three and a half days, doesn't usually merit a blacklisting. —Cryptic 02:00, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Description of suggested change: Please add Wikipedia talk:Discord/talk and its subpages (and possibly also Wikipedia talk:Discord/Talk and its subpages) to the title blacklist. I see that Wikipedia talk:Discord/talk (subpage level 1), Wikipedia talk:Discord/talk/talk (subpage level 2), and Wikipedia talk:Discord/talk/talk/talk (subpage level 3) have all been created by sockpuppets. If the pattern continues, then Wikipedia talk:Discord/talk/talk/talk/talk (subpage level 4), Wikipedia talk:Discord/talk/talk/talk/talk/talk (subpage level 5), etc. could then also possibly be created by similar sockpuppets.

Diff:

GTrang (talk) 03:30, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That regex won't match any of your redlinks (nor any other pages that have been created, whether existing or deleted). quarry:query/85144 shows hits for Wikipedia talk:discord\/talk.*. No strong position on the merits, but they do look slim to me. —Cryptic 04:01, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed my regex by removing the mistakenly added colon. GTrang (talk) 04:14, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[tT] isn't needed either; the regexes here are case-insensitive.

Having looked at the deleted content, this looks like the sort of abuse that'll just move to a different title. See Wikipedia:Salting is usually a bad idea. That said, still I don't have a strong objection if some other admin wants to do this. —Cryptic 04:16, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think this is that useful, those disrupters will just create a different title - and I'd rather have them create nonsense buried there where it is easy to find, delete, and block them. — xaosflux 11:44, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit protected}} template. Izno (talk) 21:57, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Description of suggested change: The first two entries in the "excessive punctuation and repetition" section look like they're trying to use lookahead assertions, but they use incorrect syntax; lookahead assertions should use equals signs where these rules use less-than signs. However, it's not really necessary to use lookahead assertions here anyway, so we should just replace these malformed lookahead assertions with strings of exclamation marks.

Diff:

TTWIDEE (talk) 19:32, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, they don't look like they're trying to use lookahead assertions. They look like - and are - negative lookbehind assertions. [!?‽¿]{3}(?<!!!!) matches any sequence of three !, ?, ‽, or ¿ characters in a row except three of ! - for example, Foo??? and Foo?!! and Foo?!‽ are all matched, but Foo!!! deliberately is not. It's not immediately obvious why that behavior is intended, but it clearly is; and your patterns would for example forbid Foo‽‽!!!!! but not Foo!!!!!‽‽, which is nonsensical. The move-only pattern works the same for sequences of two or more. —Cryptic 20:00, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are legitimate articles titled with three exclamation marks in a row like No, Thank You!!!. That's probably why it wants to exclude that specifically. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:11, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the diff deliberately allowing !!!. —Cryptic 20:13, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, for some reason I didn't read the first exclamation mark in each bracket as part of the assertion syntax—I read it as part of the assertion text itself. TTWIDEE (talk) 10:02, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Combine these two rules: .*on hueels.*
.*onhueels.*
That is, replace them with this: .*on ?hueels.*
TTWIDEE (talk) 18:48, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:10, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The rule WikiProject:.* doesn't specify a custom error message, so it will just use the default error message. How about we create a more helpful error message with text like 'You cannot create WikiProject:Foo—creation of pages with titles starting with "WikiProject:" is forbidden because WikiProjects are meant to go in the Wikipedia namespace. Please create the new WikiProject at Wikipedia:WikiProject Foo instead.'? TTWIDEE (talk) 20:13, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please add .*blake.*alma.* per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blake Alma (numismatist) (2nd nomination). Thanks. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:13, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. (How did this take eleven years to blacklist?) —Cryptic 05:56, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I was creating a list of articles today and found that the title Neeraj Singh Lodhi is blacklisted from being created. Could someone remove the blacklist so I can create the article or move my draft from User:GrabUp/sandbox/article to that title? GrabUp - Talk 07:20, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to create a new article today called Dissenting POWs: From Vietnam’s Hoa Lo Prison to America Today and found that it is on the title blacklist. I have the article ready to go in my Sandbox. Please remove this title from the blacklist. Also, can you help me understand how this happened?JohnKent (talk) 17:03, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Use a standard apostrophe rather than a curly quote. Dissenting POWs: From Vietnam's Hoa Lo Prison to America Today * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:20, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Let's replace .* shitt?ing in .*'?s? mouth with .* shitt?ing in .* mouth—'?s? is redundant with .*. TTWIDEE (talk) 19:24, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. I wonder whether this rule needs to be here at all - it sounds like something one specific vandal wrote once and they're long gone. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:47, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Diff. We won't be getting any answers out of the admin who added it, and the pages must've been oversighted (surprise!) since there's no matches in the deletion or move logs for the preceding year. —Cryptic 20:22, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That inspired me to dig deeper. And I found phab:T380322, which I realized was a security vulnerability, but didn't get me anywhere closer to the goal.

Then I looked at their logged actions at the time and found a pretty interesting picture. And, well, I found the intended target there.

Doesn't change my opinion that the rule is targeting a long-gone vandal and so not that useful. But also harmless, I guess. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:48, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Let's remove .*\.\.\.\.H.* <moveonly>, because it's redundant with .*\.\.\.H.* <moveonly>. TTWIDEE (talk) 10:01, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:30, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pppery It seems like you've removed the one with three dots rather than the one with four dots by mistake, so you've actually unblocked some page moves that were previously blocked. TTWIDEE (talk) 19:23, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly matters, but I've fixed it now. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:24, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This kind of illustrates why I haven't been actioning these requests - it works as-is, the changes shouldn't have any effect, but making any sort of change might break it. —Cryptic 20:07, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Description of suggested change: Since the title Wikipaedo has been repeatedly recreated and deleted per WP:G10, then SALTed from creation, I think that we should make some changes to the Wikipedo regex to accommodate spellings from other varieties of English (such as paedo), as well as other ways it can be spelled, such as with the Æ ligature.

Diff:

2604:3D08:9476:BE00:3123:39E1:D5EF:AE5A (talk) 19:25, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done That one title was created once in 2010, and once a week ago. That's not enough for a title blacklist rule. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:35, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Description of suggested changes:

• Add strings of five or more combining diacritics (I'd go down to three or four but some testing is needed due to the potential of false positives)
• Add the phrases "inanimate insanity", "object mayhem", "object overload", "brawl of the objects", "BOTO" and their obfuscations per WP:BFDI (object shows are verboten due to lack of notability)

Doctor Zoath (talk) 16:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Has the first actually been a problem? I'm only seeing four titles created, ever, with four or more consecutive combining diacritics (using the lists at combining character), and all four are now forbidden by other blacklist rules. —Cryptic 17:00, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And hits for #2. Significant false positives for BOTO, even case-sensitive, but no opinion either way otherwise. —Cryptic 17:09, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If we do add the other object show title strings to the blacklist (other than BOTO due to false positives), we should also add BFDI's 5th season The Power of Two ("the power of two", "the power of 2", "tpot", "tpo2", "bfdi:tpot", "bfdi:tpo2", and obfuscations), as well as the strings "jacknjellify", "animation ?epic", "adamation" (possible false positives?), and names for other object show creators (Adam Katz, Brian Koch, Justin Chapman, Satomi Hinatsu, and Samuel Thornbury/Sam Thornbury). Doctor Zoath (talk) 20:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"power of 2" is far too broad. I'm not inclined to blacklist any of these preemptively, but others' opinions may differ. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:34, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The zalgo text problem occassionaly results in Wikipedia edits getting RD3'd, as happened at Central African Republic in July 2024 (twice). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:47, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This wouldn't do a thing to stop that; those were bad edits to page text, not creations of or moves to bad titles. —Cryptic 18:59, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a long-term abuser who is repeatedly recreating Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Congestion pricing in New York City, Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Congestion pricing in New York City, and variants, under any number of capitalization combinations (see here for a sample of the titles the LTA has created). As a result, several of these titles have had to be create-protected.

Is there a way to prevent non-extended confirmed users from creating any page in the WP: or WT: namespace with the text "articles for deletion" and "congestion pricing in New York"? There is virtually no reason any user, in good faith, will need to request deletion of congestion pricing in New York City. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:11, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We've just had an evasion attempt at Talk:congestion pricing in New York City/AFD, so I've just added a broader rule to stop any non-autoconfirmed user from creating any page containing "congestion pricing" and "new york city" in the title. Hopefully this won't lead to autoconfirmed gaming. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]