Wikipedia:Edit filter noticeboard
- Last changed at 13:36, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
Filter 614 — Pattern modified
- Last changed at 07:03, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
Filter 1381 (new) — Actions: none; Flags: enabled,public; Pattern modified
- Last changed at 23:32, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
Filter 1372 — Flags: disabled
- Last changed at 15:46, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
Filter 1373 — Flags: disabled
- Last changed at 15:46, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
Filter 1374 — Flags: disabled
- Last changed at 15:46, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
Filter 1375 — Flags: disabled
- Last changed at 15:46, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
Filter 1380 (new) — Actions: disallow; Flags: enabled,private; Pattern modified
- Last changed at 15:18, 24 August 2025 (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 or changes to existing filters, 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.
There are currently 357 enabled filters and 48 stale filters with no hits in the past 30 days. Filter condition use is ~1030, out of a maximum of 2000. ().
| Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be auto-archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Merge proposal of filter 766 into filter 11
editFilter 11 is supposed to cover "warn and tag vandalism" as a generic warn & tag filter, but now only covers "you/he/she/it/we/they suck" vandalism. Because filter 766 has the same actions as filter 11 and edits that trigger filter 766 are almost always vandalism, it can be merged into filter 11. RaschenTechner (talk) 12:39, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
- They have different settings at Template:DatBot filters. Filter 11 reports after 5 edits, but 766 reports after only 2. Also I think 766 is more likely to reveal block-on-sight behavior, while 11 is mostly just kids with short attention spans. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 00:27, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
- Filter 39 could also be merged into filter 11 since both filters report after 5 edits and edits that trigger filter 39 are almost always vandalism. Alternatively, the "school vandalism" in filter 39 can be merged to filter 11, while the "school libel" can stay in filter 39 which can then be set to disallow and renamed to "Possible school libel".
- However, the regex that indicates that the filter only trips when the article title includes "school", "college", "academy", "university" or "ysgol" might cause some problems, so I'm not too sure about this idea. RaschenTechner (talk) 12:45, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Courtesy pings to everyone who participated in the discussions about AI above: @Chaotic Enby, ChildrenWillListen, Novem Linguae, Asilvering, CoconutOctopus, Qcne, Zanahary, and ClaudineChionh:.
At EFR, ChildrenWillListen and ChaoticEnby have suggested 1) splitting the filter and 2) setting it to disallow. Please state clearly in your response whether you support neither option, only 1), only 2), or both. If you support 1), please also state how you would like the filter to be split. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 14:55, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
- Support disallow - what would users see when trying to make the edit, as they'd probably do this as part of the New Article Wizard on the Publish Page step. qcne (talk) 14:58, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
- I should add that if consensus has been reached to set the filter to disallow, we would probably have to make a custom message so that we aren't biting the newcomers. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 15:02, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
- Support splitting, although for disallow we should be clarifying which parts would be affected. I would support disallowing the removal of decline templates (per the "removal of speedy deletion tags" precedent) as well as the addition of spurious ones, but not the use of {{afc}} instead of {{AfC submission}} – which, while an inconvenience for AFCH, isn't problematic enough to disallow and is already justified by the redirect existing. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:24, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
- Edit: per Asilvering below, neutral on disallowing the removal of decline templates (a warning could be more ideal), although I still support disallowing the addition of spurious templates. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 10:25, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
- Comment: can you explain your recent edit to 1370, PharyngealImplosive7? It looks like you have removed a set of OR logic parameters. Codename Noreste (talk) 21:33, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
- Because if a different user declines a submission in someone's user sandbox, the filter would still trigger. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 22:46, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
- Support splitting, support disallow for removing AfC templates: Splitting this would be immediately useful to find false positives, and it's better for a code unit to do one thing and do it well rather than try to do three things all at once. As for disallowing people from removing declined templates, it'll save the reviewers time from having to go through page history and manually restoring deleted templates. A recent example is at Rudy Hudson, where I nearly edit warred to preserve those templates because the author really wanted them gone (and the AfD notice too, but that's a different story.) Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 23:11, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
- Support split into one filter for removing past declines and another for adding templates,
support disallowing removal of declinesreading the discussion initiated by asilvering, happy for the watch-then-decide approach suggested by ToBeFree. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 04:08, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
- Support disallow on the filter that prevents the AFCH-breaking LLM garbo submissions. Oppose disallow on the decline-removing filter. There are perfectly acceptable reasons to remove the decline templates. I'd rather we warned people rather than outright disallowing this. -- asilvering (talk) 04:27, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
- Curious about which reasons you have in mind! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 10:04, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
- Deciding you don't want to go through AfC after all, over-writing an old draft with something totally new, various using-draft-like-a-sandbox scenarios similar to the aforementioned, removing old bad declines so they're not unfairly prejudicing future reviews (I do this often enough). etc. -- asilvering (talk) 10:20, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
- That actually makes sense, thanks! Although for the last one, I don't think it would be disallowed as it only restricts removals of templates by the draft creator? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 10:24, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
- That's true, and also since it ignores patrollers it wouldn't catch many AfC reviewers even if it didn't only restrict removals by the draft creator. Nevertheless I think there are enough good-to-not-totally-horrible reasons why someone would remove decline messages that we shouldn't set it to disallow entirely. Warnings, though, by all means. Even just being logged in the filter at all would be helpful. -- asilvering (talk) 10:57, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
- That actually makes sense, thanks! Although for the last one, I don't think it would be disallowed as it only restricts removals of templates by the draft creator? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 10:24, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
- Deciding you don't want to go through AfC after all, over-writing an old draft with something totally new, various using-draft-like-a-sandbox scenarios similar to the aforementioned, removing old bad declines so they're not unfairly prejudicing future reviews (I do this often enough). etc. -- asilvering (talk) 10:20, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
- Curious about which reasons you have in mind! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 10:04, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
- Let's split the filters first, watch how they perform separately and then decide about disallowing which of them. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:30, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
- Good idea. -- asilvering (talk) 23:38, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
Filter for false dabs of Christian denominations
editEvery now and then (I can think of at least three occasions in the past couple of years), I will find a wikilink for a Christian denomination whose formal or common name includes a parenthetical disambiguation which has been piped to hide the disambiguator. Given my lack of editorial interest in the topic, if I keep finding links like these, I figure they must be rather common. Would it be allowable from a resource perspective to have a filter that explains what those dabs are and warns people not to do this? Examples of denominations this would apply to include Presbyterian Church (USA), Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), and Church of England (Continuing); I'm sure we could find more by trawling the relevant categories. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 23:22, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
- Quick first stab. The regex matches stuff like
[[Lorem Ipsum Church (Dolor)|Lorem Ipsum Church]]. I'm not an edit filter manager or even helper, so I have no idea how effective this would actually be.
piped_church := "\[\[([^\]\|\n]*)Church([^\]\|\n]*)\(([^\]\|\n]+)\)\|([^\]\|\n]*)\]\]"
added_lines rlike piped_church &
!(removed_lines rlike piped_church)Duckmather (talk) 06:48, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
- To minimize false positives, I would probably just hard-code the relevant denomination names. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 14:03, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
Updating filter 1045: Self-published (blog / web host)
editI'm starting to work on expanding and improving filter 1045 (hist · log) to cover more sources listed under WP:UGC. I also anticipate updating the description to "User-generated or self-published source" (to keep it differentiated from 894) and renaming the tag and warning page similarly. I'm going to do some analysis to find the most commonly reverted sources in addition to adding most if not all of the sites listed in the guideline. Please let me know if you have any concerns, feedback, or domains you'd like me to investigate including in the revised filter. Thanks! Daniel Quinlan (talk) 01:30, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
Remove edit summary exemption from filter 3 when resulting page size is 0
editBased on this diff, I think we should remove the exemption from filter 3 where the filter is ignored if the edit summary contains "rv", "revert" or "undid", where the resulting page size is 0 (i.e. completely blank). Should be something like this:
!(summary irlike "^(?:revert|rv|undid)" & new_size > 0)
The bold is my addition. This would mean that it would only exempt the edit if it contained the aforementioned edit summary and the new size is not 0. Aydoh8[what have I done now?] 14:43, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- I'd also be open to limiting the scope of the new size condition to pages that the editor hasn't created i.e. not user pages they have blanked. Aydoh8[what have I done now?] 14:47, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
Question about "Short new talk page sections" edit filter
editAs a relatively new editor doing anti-vandalism work while patrolling the edit filter logs, I frequently come across a TON of attempted edits of IP addresses adding short talkpage sections. The filter doesn't allow them to post the short talkpage sections. (Examples: Special:AbuseLog/42008169, Special:AbuseLog/42008142). I can get a whole lot more examples; sometimes about a dozen of these come up about every five or so minutes.
I'm just genuinely curious as to where these attempted edits come from. Is this some sort of LTA spammer, and an edit filter was created to block them a long time ago, or is there a legitimate reason why these attempted edits keep popping up in the filter log? Thanks. 71.59.186.230 (talk) 05:30, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
- The filter details mentions the filter was created as the result of this discussion in 2023. --tony 05:32, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
- I too have wondered this. They're so frequent, always follow a similar pattern, and come from varying IPs--usually without any other recent edits before or after. I assumed it was a bot continuously firing off. I can't wrap my head around the idea that there's that many people, attempting to add 1-2 word nonsense comments, to only talk pages all day every day. Nubzor [T][C] 02:03, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
Disable filter 1371 for now?
editLooking at the hits, I notice most (if not all) false positives, given that it triggers even when an existent template is added. Codename Noreste (talk) 04:12, 28 August 2025 (UTC)