Wikipedia:Edit filter noticeboard

"WP:EFN" redirects here. For information on the {{efn}} template, see WP:EXPLNOTE.

Welcome to the edit filter noticeboard

WATCH

Recent filter changes ():

Filter 1382 — Flags: disabled

Last changed at 16:50, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Filter 1375 — Actions: none; Flags: enabled

Last changed at 19:55, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Filter 1385 (new) — Actions: none; Flags: disabled,public; Pattern modified

Last changed at 13:41, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Filter 869 — Pattern modified

Last changed at 05:32, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Filter 887 — Pattern modified

Last changed at 15:46, 30 September 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 360 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. ().

Click here to start a new discussion

Setting 1381 to warn or disallow?

After being created on request on 24 August and having since recorded 5 hits and no false positives, I think we should set this filter to either warn or disallow. I'm not particularly versed on either, I thought it would be better to get a consensus on what option we should take. Aydoh8^{[what have I done now?]} 15:31, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

5 hits is not a particularly large amount of hits. I would prefer waiting for more hits rather than setting the filter to disallow now. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 16:31, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Interestingly Draft:Agrajeet Chowdhury doesn't seem to have any filter hits by this filter (when it was not deleted), seems like a false negative. Tenshi! (Talk page) 16:57, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Interesting. I'm not a sysop so I can't see the deleted contribs; if any sysop reading this would be able to temporarily undelete or copy the diff so we can troubleshoot, that would be appreciated. (Please ping) Aydoh8^{[what have I done now?]} 04:41, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

@Aydoh8: This would likely be at Special:AbuseLog/42122172. See the old_wikitext generated variable for the text of the article. It appears it didn't hit since the user in question manually submitted with {{subst:submit}}, thus bypassing the edit summary check (by simply not leaving one), and bypassing the added_lines check by using "submit" instead of anything matching the "submission" string. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 05:09, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

I’ll have a look when I’m back on my computer. Thanks for the message. Aydoh8^{[what have I done now?]} 05:11, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Of course. I will admit, this seems a bit of a roundabout way to get deleted history, and it seems like it would be easier to just add deletedtext/deletedhistory to EFMs, though I don't see that gaining consensus. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 05:13, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

I’m quite sure WMF once said that users should go through RfA or RfA-equivalent process in order to see deleted contributions. A09|(talk) 14:24, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

@EggRoll97: I've had a look, would you (or any EFM reading) be able to change submission := "\{\{afc(?:\ssubmission)?\|\|\|" to submission := "\{\{afc(?:\ssubmission)?\|\|\||\{\{(subst:)?submit\}\}"? That should fix that false negative, matching both {{subst:submit}} and the non-substituted {{submit}}. Aydoh8^{[what have I done now?]} 09:18, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm getting a syntax error from that when I try to test it in /test. I believe there's a bracket missing in there, but I'll check later. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 06:12, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

@EggRoll97: Perhaps its because you forgot the semicolon at the end? With the semicolon, the code does not seem to give any errors. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 13:38, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

@PharyngealImplosive7: You are correct, silly me. I've edited the filter accordingly. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 03:47, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Looks like the decision to include {{subst:submit}} in the filter was a good one, since it has picked up 3 more hits in the past week all using the manual subst. Aydoh8^{[what have I done now?]} 18:03, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Add the abusefilter-modify-restricted right to EFM

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.

---

This right allows for editing filters with restricted actions. With the current wiki configuration, the only restricted action is blocking autoconfirmed granting, and revoking if one already is autoconfirmed. It is worth noting that all EFMs can already restore autoconfirmed if it is revoked by a filter. I don't see any reason in which a filter should be uneditable by non-admin EFMs, considering anyone with the right has gone through a discussion/request to attain it, (or gone through RfA to gauge general competence, and has assessed themselves as competent enough to edit filters), and has proven their technical competence in filter editing, and it seems a good idea to simply grant the right to the main EFM group. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 18:18, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

I thought existing policy was that we don't write any edit filters here that blocks autoconfirmed? In that case there's no point to add that right. dbeef [talk] 02:06, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Activating filters with blockautopromote is now being discussed at WT:PP and in the section above this, and nothing is necessarily written into policy to prevent it, though I had thought the same thing on us not writing these filters. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 02:48, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

My impression is that it's not used because it's not terribly helpful on its own for various reasons. I'm proposing on WT:PP that we use that functionality to make it more difficult to game extendedconfirmed. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 05:42, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

In that case such that a potential proposal is being considered, Support this proposal.

EFMs are already highly trusted. they can easily craft a filter that prevents someone from editing. Potential for abuse is very low. dbeef [talk] 14:44, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

@Dbeef: I've posted a revised proposal at Wikipedia talk:Protection policy § Revised proposal to improve extended confirmed grants which should address this issue independently of the above proposal. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 20:52, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Also support this. Non-admin EFMs are already high trusted and we already can disallow edits. I see no problem with us having the ability to block autopromotion. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 03:16, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

• Noting that this has been implemented in phab:T405999 and is currently live. Personally, I'm a bit skeptical about the level of support demonstrated by this discussion and have raised objections on the phab task regarding the site-wide change without a formal RFC (since I do think we should do a formal RFC for any modifying userrights), but thoughts on that are invited on that both here and on the phab task. -- Sohom (talk) 04:51, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

  Looks like the phab task has been closed and abusefilter-modify-restricted added to EFM. I tested creating a filter that blocks autopromotion at 1385 and the action went through, so this task probably could be closed? – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 13:36, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Question

Does anyone know why Special:Diff/1313911692 seems to have triggered Filter 631, "Extraneous Toolbar Markup"? This filter usually catches test edits in main space, and when I saw the hit I reverted initially as an editing test, but then I noticed that it was actually a substantial addition of content, causing me to revert my previous revert. Why did an edit that in actuality was anything but a test edit trigger a filter used for catching test edits? Taking Out The Trash (talk) 19:49, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

See Special:Diff/1313914099, which is what triggered the filter. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:52, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Taking Out The Trash, 631 (hist · log) catches exact toolbar markup in articles (using rlike), but only if there is an addition or removal of content. On the other hand, 1300 (hist · log) is similar, but warns non-autoconfirmed users who only add exact toolbar markup and nothing else. Based on this, it seems that filter 631 is working as intended. Codename Noreste (talk) 02:46, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Implementation of user_unnamed_ip to filters, and suggestions for filters using only user_editcount/user_age as pre-filters

Given that temporary accounts are coming on October 21, 2025, I would suggest implementing user_unnamed_ip to filters that use ip_in_range(s) in advance. In addition to that, I have some suggestions for filters that should target registered users:

• Filters that rely on user_editcount as a pre-filter should probably be changed to (user_type != "named" | user_editcount < [value]), given that for temporary accounts, checking for user_type will evaluate to true for unregistered users as opposed to user_editcount which will no longer work after temp. accounts' edits reach a certain number of edits.
• Similarly, filters that use user_age for registered accounts should probably be wrapped with (user_type == "named" & user_age </<=/>/>= [value]).

Codename Noreste (talk) 20:18, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Request for Edit filter helper flag

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.

---

The earliest closure has started. (refresh)

• Little Sunshine (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · ev · fm · mms · npr · pm · pc · rb · te · taiv)}

Hey! Having read Wikipedia:Edit filter helper, I found myself in the same scenario as the one specified in the second bullet of the common use cases.

I'm an administrator in the Portuguese Wikipedia (verify) and have dealt with several sock puppetry/LTA cases, admittedly never with a SPI-specific flag. I've also been working on bettering the existing local abuse filters, having imported a filter from here.

However, I noticed this wiki has LTA-specific abuse filters, and found the mere existence of them immensely interesting, so I'd like to request the flag to study them and potentially add similar filters back home.

I would also be studying many other filters, since I've taken great interest in them, but my biggest curiosity fell upon the LTA filters.

I'm open to any questions that you may have and will absolutely understand if you see this request as not fit for the flag.

Cheers, Little Sunshine ✉ call me 19:08, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

You've stated an interest in LTA filters, which seems like a fair enough rationale. I note that you have edited a private filter only once total on ptwiki. Would you be able to expand on your experience with LTA work? EggRoll97 ^(talk) 02:28, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Regarding the one private filter edit, I've done most work in the later filters I've created in july/august, and only then began to look into false positive cases; it's a fairly recent endeavour, though I've began reading up on them early in my adminship.

For my LTA work, I've been working antivandalism since early 2024. Since then, I've come across many different LTA and sockpuppetry cases. I've created some SPI cases (CTRL+F "Pedidos a verificadores") and have dealt with many other obvious sockpuppets that required no investigation (CTRL+F "{{Fantoche").

I've had a request for the CheckUser flag that failed due to it being too soon after being approved as a sysop (which indeed it was), and it's something I plan on circling back to some time soon.

Until then, I want to better ptwiki's ability to handle LTAs. All administrative work on SPs now is done only after the fact, which is why I took great interest in LTA filters. Little Sunshine ✉ call me 12:09, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Little Sunshine, why not apply for the global abuse filter helper permission (on Meta-Wiki) instead of edit filter helper? GAFH will allow you to view all filters in all wikis (including the English Wikipedia and Meta-Wiki's global filters), and it can allow you to also review reports regarding global filters. Codename Noreste (talk) 14:55, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Hey, @Codename Noreste!

I might just do that, then. I wasn't aware of the global flag; I stumbled upon English Wikipedia's while perusing through the docs here. Thank you for the recommendation! In that case, I presume the request here will be cancelled?

Cheers, Little Sunshine ✉ call me 19:48, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

It's your choice, but I would recommend applying for GAFH per my stated reasoning. Codename Noreste (talk) 20:12, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Done! Application is published. Thank you! Little Sunshine ✉ call me 20:14, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

@Little Sunshine: Since enwiki EFH is redundant to GAFH and your GAFH application is now live, could your EFH nomination be considered withdrawn? – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 01:44, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi, @PharyngealImplosive7! Yes, I withdraw my nomination, thank you kindly. Little Sunshine ✉ call me 01:51, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Possible LTA filter FP

See this log. They're not tripping any public filter simultaneously so I have no idea what's going on/if this is indeed an LTA account or if it's an FP that needs to be fixed and the user properly welcomed. Either way needs eyes on it. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 21:45, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Seems like a fine filter hit to me. I don't really see the point in what appears to be a bunch of promotional biographies. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 00:18, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

I agree with ER97, these are true positives. Codename Noreste (talk) 01:38, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

[URGENT] Temporary filter needed to stop a BLP mass attack

See the recent hits to filters Special:AbuseFilter/1212 and Special:AbuseFilter/117. There's some sort of mas attack going on targeting various BLPs with unsourced claims of death, all with the exact same edit summary "Heaven gained another angel". We're going to need a filter probably to block these edits on that identical summary, as all of the IPs are different from one another and thus range blocks aren't going to work, and I haven't figured out if there's even any common denominator as to which articles are being targeted. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 18:53, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Blocking that stuff doesn't work because then you get "Heaven gaint an angel" and "𝐻𝑒𝒶𝓋𝑒𝓃 𝑔𝒶𝒾𝓃𝑒𝒹 𝒶𝓃 𝒶𝓃𝑔𝑒𝓁" and "Some completely unrelated edit summary". ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:58, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Yeah I would specifically request we don't block these, as that will just make future efforts in dealing with them more difficult. It's way easier to play whack-a-mole—if it's set to deny, we force them to change their behavior to something less predictable. Perryprog (talk) 19:00, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

But how are we actually going to stop them? There's thousands upon thousands of IP addresses - we can't play whack-a-mole ad infinitum for hours on end. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 19:03, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

We're stopping them right now. Their edits are being reverted in literal seconds, and IPs may be cheap but they aren't free. Not to mention if this isn't a fully automated attack (which it definitely isn't), there's a human on their end who will get tired of this. Perryprog (talk) 19:09, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Some of that managed to stay for a few hours. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 19:11, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

That is unfortunate, but it's still trivial to find those once this was noticed. We really don't want to make it more difficult to find future instances by forcing this person to "evolve" the complexity of their vandalism. A person like this isn't going to be discouraged by an AbuseFilter saying "no"; they'll figure out what specific thing they're doing that's being triggered and then stop doing it. Perryprog (talk) 19:14, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Well, yes, they're clearly not a new user. I noticed some of these proxies were blocked when ST47ProxyBot was still active, wonder if we can bring that back again. This is some vandalbot using LLMs (e.g. [1]) to rewrite article content. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 19:22, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Ooo, good catch on the LLM usage! That does make things make a lot more sense now. I also didn't realize that ST47ProxyBot was retired, that is too bad; I get why, though. Perryprog (talk) 19:31, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm working from quarry:query/97676, but they're hitting a few existing filters as well. These are proxies and should be blocked for a long time. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 19:10, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard § Addition of abusefilter-modify-restricted right to EFMs

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard § Addition of abusefilter-modify-restricted right to EFMs. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 09:24, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Set 833 to warn and tag?

I have always been thinking about this and also made a request about this in the request page, but I think that since the filter's purpose is (New users possibly adding unreferenced or improperly referenced material). I think the filter should give the user a warning about performing the action, and then tag the edit in the page history, user contributions, and recent changes. As I think no action would make any sense. 98.235.155.81 (talk) 10:33, 4 October 2025 (UTC)