Wikipedia:Edit filter noticeboard
- Last changed at 04:35, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
Filter 869 — Pattern modified
- Last changed at 23:21, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
Filter 384 — Pattern modified
- Last changed at 00:20, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
Filter 1313 (deleted) &mdash
- Last changed at 01:03, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
Filter 1378 — Flags: disabled
- Last changed at 13:36, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
Filter 614 — Pattern modified
- Last changed at 07:03, 28 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 356 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. |
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)
- https://xkcd.com/202. Really, it's just easier these days to edit a talk page, so naturally we get more drive-by comments. I wasn't around for the WP:AFT but from what I've gathered it was much, much worse. Check out 458 (hist · log), 460 (hist · log), etc. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 00:40, 31 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)
- I've noticed that a lot. If you look at my edit filter log, you'll see almost all of the more recent ones have been triggered by 1371, and all are FPs. Aydoh8[what have I done now?] 04:10, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- Courtesy ping to @Duckmather:, who originally requested this filter. Are you still using it in any capacity? – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 13:27, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- Disabled and deleted. I don't think that we can ever make the false positive rate low enough for this filter to be feasible. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 04:36, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
- Courtesy ping to @Duckmather:, who originally requested this filter. Are you still using it in any capacity? – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 13:27, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
Flooding of an LTA filter needs review
editIP user flooding the filter log here. Not sure which LTA or what actions specifically the filter is supposed to be targeting - the pages don't seem to be the sort that would be typical LTA targets. But investigation/review is needed. Thanks. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 18:43, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- It's a false positive, but still stopping a bad edit to an equally bad article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:51, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
TAIV and EFM/EFH rights
editLooking Special:UserGroupRights:
temporary-account-viewer: View IP addresses used by temporary accounts(checkuser-temporary-account)abusefilterandabusefilter-helper: View and create filters that use protected variables(abusefilter-access-protected-vars)
Might it make more sense for all these groups to have both rights? If someone is trusted to view temporary account IPs in one place, they should be trusted to view them everywhere, yes? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:53, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
- It definitely makes sense in my mind. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 00:43, 31 August 2025 (UTC)