Wikipedia:Edit filter noticeboard

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

Welcome to the edit filter noticeboard

Shortcuts

• WP:EFNWP:EFN
• WP:EF/NWP:EF/N

WATCH

Recent filter changes (purge):

Filter 54 — Pattern modified

Last changed at 13:51, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Filter 614 — Pattern modified

Last changed at 04:19, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Filter 1377 (new) — Actions: disallow; Flags: enabled,private; Pattern modified

Last changed at 04:08, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Filter 149 — Pattern modified

Last changed at 01:37, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Filter 420 — Pattern modified

Last changed at 01:28, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Filter 777 — Pattern modified

Last changed at 01:29, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Filter 788 — Pattern modified

Last changed at 01:29, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Filter 1025 — Pattern modified

Last changed at 01:31, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Filter 1367 — Flags: disabled

Last changed at 00:28, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Filter 1346 — Pattern modified

Last changed at 05:45, 11 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 359 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. (Purge).

Click here to start a new discussion

Suggested change to filter 1370

• 1370 (hist · log) (pinging @PharyngealImplosive7 as the filter maintainer)

Hi, everyone. I am suggesting a change to filter 1370:

• I also excluded bots in addition to autopatrolled users and admins.
• I wrapped the conditions in another set of parenthesis to fix the OR logic of this filter.
• For the sandbox exclusion condition, I removed page_namespace == 2 and replaced it with !("sandbox" in page_prefixedtitle), given that we have the user and draft namespaces as a pre-filter.
• Instead of added_lines for removing declined AfC submissions, I used new_wikitext in the exclusion.
• For the condition that detects a page creation or if the user is the first contributor, I used XOR, but boolean OR is fine to use. (does not make much of a difference).

equals_to_any(page_namespace, 2, 118) &
!contains_any(user_groups, "patroller", "sysop", "bot") &
(
    (
        /* Removal of declined AfC templates (for whatever reason; not necessarily LLM-related) */
        removed_lines irlike "\{\{afc(?:\ssubmission)?\|d" &
        !(new_wikitext irlike "\{\{afc(?:\ssubmission)?\|d") &
        !(page_namespace == 2 & "sandbox" in page_prefixedtitle)
    ) | (
        (
            (
                /* Addition of the AfC template redirect (often done by LLMs as well and breaks the AFCH script) */
                added_lines irlike "\{\{afc\s?(?:\}\}|\|)" &
                !(removed_lines irlike "\{\{afc\s?(?:\}\}|\|)")
            ) | (
                /* Adding spurious decline template (often done by LLMs) */
                added_lines irlike "\{\{afc(?:\ssubmission)?\|d" &
                !(removed_lines irlike "\{\{afc")
            )
        ) &
        /* Check if the page was created OR if the user was the first contributor */
        (
            page_id == 0 |
            user_name == page_first_contributor
        )
    )
)

Thank you. Codename Noreste (talk) 18:16, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would not use XOR for the last condition because anytime a user creates a new page they will be the first contributor, and the filter will not match. The point of adding page_namespace == 2 was to only not flag sandboxes in userspace. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 22:23, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I changed my suggestion accordingly. Codename Noreste (talk) 22:33, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Y Done – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 22:48, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I really like your improvements, although now I'm wondering about the balance between the redundancy that a split would cause in terms of performances and maintainability, and the advantage of logging the events separately (and having potentially different actions). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 00:02, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The main issue with the filter was that it wasn't wrapped in parenthesis (the OR logic). Codename Noreste (talk) 02:10, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

True, although while that is one of the parts that would be redundant if the filter was to be split, I don't think the cost would be too high as to make it not worth it to have a different filter for each action. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 11:42, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

False positive

Hi! I tried updating the description page for File:TuamMap1918-10560.gif to clarify copyright status per WP:NFCC and GA criteria. I added PD-US-expired, PD-UK-unknown, and OldOS tags, but the edit was blocked by the filter. This is a 1918 Ordnance Survey map, so it qualifies as public domain in both the U.S. and UK. Could the filter be adjusted to allow these edits? Thank you ItsShandog (talk) 17:12, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please report false positives at WP:EFFPR. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 17:15, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deferred For the bot. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 14:16, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CAPTCHA request for 1367

Hello, due to the number of rapid disruptive edits caught by filter 1367 could we enable captcha for that filter to slow the disruption? Thx. Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 18:18, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

N Denied. No, it has a very high false positive rate, but one or more filters that can be connected to CAPTCHA or other actions is the eventual goal. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 19:05, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Quinlan, I've made more than a thousand reverts in the last hour for the IP hopping vandal. The longest amount of time I've spent not pushing "revert" is the amount of time it's taking me to type this message. If there's anything that can be done, even temporarily, it would be very helpful. tony 19:18, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that is a much more specific request and it's more actionable. I will take a look at the recent reverts you've made and see if there's something more specific that can be done. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 19:31, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See ANI [1] This is a high-rate IP automated hopper with multiple edits per minute, each from a different IP. Most are from Brazil, but they can be from anywhere. Acroterion (talk) 19:34, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Eventual" is not very helpful, is there work going on concerning a separate EF? Otherwise, the majority of those caught by 1367 are correct, and within acceptable collateral damage, short of disabling IP editing. Acroterion (talk) 19:23, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking into it right now. See above. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 19:32, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Y Done May this please the bot. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 00:19, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal of filter 766 into filter 11

• 11 (hist · log) ("Warn and tag vandalism")
• 766 (hist · log) ("Alt-right labeling")

Filter 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Splitting 1370 (hist · log) and setting it to disallow

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Support split into one filter for removing past declines and another for adding templates, support disallowing removal of declines reading 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

  Curious about which reasons you have in mind! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 10:04, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

  Good idea. -- asilvering (talk) 23:38, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Implementation of support for upcoming temporary accounts

Hi, everyone. Since temporary accounts are coming this September (and on all other wikis), I am recommending some upcoming changes to edit filters:

• For unregistered users, user_age == 0 should ideally be replaced with user_type != "named", but you can use equals_to_any(user_type, "ip", "temp") in the meantime. When temporary accounts are implemented here, I would suggest using user_type != "named" as before.
• Similarly, filters that use user_age > 0 or user_age != 0 should be replaced with user_type == "named" to target registered users (e.g. accounts).

I have now posted some information regarding this on the edit filter mailing list. Thank you. Codename Noreste (talk) 21:01, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Y Done. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 01:42, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Also, edit filters including the word IP should probably be replaced with unregistered user, but that can probably be done when the end of August approaches. Codename Noreste (talk) 02:54, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Filter for false dabs of Christian denominations

Every 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)[reply]