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 614 — Pattern modified

Last changed at 09:44, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Filter 1170 — Pattern modified

Last changed at 01:21, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Filter 729 — Flags: enabled

Last changed at 18:57, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Filter 384 — Pattern modified

Last changed at 11:34, 13 February 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 344 enabled filters and 48 stale filters with no hits in the past 30 days. Filter condition use is ~1071, out of a maximum of 2000. (). See also the profiling data and edit filter graphs.

Click here to start a new discussion

Add Geni.com to deprecated source

Could someone add *.geni.com, *genealogy.eu, and *.genealogy.euweb.cz to Special:AbuseFilter/869 per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 465#RfC: Geni.com, MedLands, genealogy.eu? Thanks in advance. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:09, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Possible regex could be geni\.com|genealogy\.eu(?:web\.cz)?. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 14:45, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

PharyngealImplosive7, your regex suggestion looks great, but the only modifications I made was that I escaped the . (periods) with backslashes. Without the backslash, the period would match any character or letter. Codename Noreste (talk) 18:18, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Oh yes, I forgot to add the delimiters. Thanks for that. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 18:55, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Y Done EggRoll97 ^(talk) 05:40, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Implement my suggestion to filter 707 from WP:EFR?

• 707 (hist · log)

Pinging 1AmNobody24 and PharyngealImplosive7 per WP:EFR, Special:Diff/1274183006 is why we should implement my suggestion to filter 707 that can disallow additions to EFFPR with more than 2500 bytes or more. I have decided to cross-post it to here due to minimal responses other than myself and those users who participated in the EFR thread. Codename Noreste (talk) 23:21, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

I think your suggestion looks good. You just forgot the !(summary irlike "^(?:revert|rv|undid)") at the end of the filter but otherwise it looks fine. We might need to make a custom message so people understand why their edit was disallowed also. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 23:59, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Filter 707 already has a custom message, MediaWiki:Abusefilter-disallowed-EFFPR, but you meant that we should modify that message as your suggestion. What should we add to the message, should we enact your suggestion (and to add | friendly = yes)? Codename Noreste (talk) 00:18, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

And to top it off, I added your suggestion (revert exclusions) to my filter suggestion. Codename Noreste (talk) 00:22, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

So right now the message is fairly vague, and I think we should add the | friendly = yes parameter also. Here is my suggestion:

{{edit filter warning
| filter   = 707
| action   = disallow
| friendly = yes
| text     = <center>An automated filter has identified this edit as potentially unconstructive. Please be aware that meddling with this page's headers and/or false positive reports will result in [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|revocation of your editing privileges]]. Also, please note that you do not need to paste the content of your attempted edit here, as it is visible to others in the [[Special:AbuseLog|edit filter log]]. If this edit was disallowed in error, please make a new section on the same page you were editing.</center>
| fplink   = no
}}

What do you think? – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 01:39, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Here is how this template would actually look, so here is a sample edit with the proposed code above: Special:Diff/1274211623. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 01:47, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

I modified the suggested message above, and I believe meddling might be less bitey than disrupting. I also changed other users' with false positive, added attempted before the word edit here, and removed on this page as it applies to the EFFPR page itself, not just other users' reports. Codename Noreste (talk) 02:12, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

The syntax/code seems fine. Not sure about the message, specifically the text. Personally I'd use:

| text     = <center>An automated filter has identified this edit as potentially unconstructive. If you are attempting to change the page's headers, please gather consensus beforehand on [[WP:EFN|the edit filter noticeboard]]. There should generally be no reason to edit another user's false positive report. Also, please note that you do not need to paste the content of your attempted edit here, as it is visible to others in the [[Special:AbuseLog|edit filter log]]. If this edit was disallowed in error, please make a new section on the same page you were editing.</center>

EggRoll97 ^(talk) 06:05, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

The thing is, you removed the mention about that people should not meddle with or blank other users' reports on EFFPR, which is also disruptive (and should be disallowed). Codename Noreste (talk) 17:05, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Should be fixed in the above. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 17:41, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Looks good so far. Codename Noreste (talk) 19:25, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, these changes to the message also seem fine in my opinion. If you guys are fine with it, I could put in an edit request to the MediaWiki file after you modify the filter. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 23:13, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Y Done and MediaWiki message change has an edit request filed here. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 04:58, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Purpose of Filter 1093

What is the purpose of Filter 1093 (hist · log)? The filter aims to address new users writing JavaScript in their userspace. Apparently, new users have a duty to not write their own JavaScript code? I wonder if this filter exists because of the possibility of a new user trying to write malware or write vandalbots. However, if a new user is knowledgeable about programming and wishes to contribute constructively, that would be different. Z. Patterson (talk) 01:05, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

I believe the filter was created for catching socks, given that both AmandaNP and GeneralNotability were active at SPI during that time. Nobody (talk) 06:35, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Because of page_title irlike ".*\.js", it would also trip on JSON pages (and the filter's title obviously says javascript, so it must be limited to .js pages). Therefore, I might have suggestions to improve the filter.

• Limit to userspace only, e.g. page_namespace == 2.
• Should we limit to non-autoconfirmed users only, or log users with less than 50 edits?
• The page title check should be page_prefixedtitle rlike "^User:.*\.js$".

Thoughts? Codename Noreste (talk) 15:26, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Reasonable suggestions, but I'm not convinced this filter is currently serving any useful purpose. I'd agree the filter was probably written to catch socks, but it's not a very reliable tell, and with Amanda and GN both relatively inactive, and the information obvious from contribs, I doubt anyone's really watching it. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:47, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

+1 charlotte ^👸♥ 19:07, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Concern about Filter 614

I've noticed filter 614 (which disallows disruptive edits related to Internet slang etc.) doesn't seem to be working at all since it was last modified. This once-active filter's log completely dried up after this modification, and vandalism I would expect it to block has started going live. (For example, this rubbish should have been stopped by the filter for containing the word 'gyatt'.) Could the issue please be investigated? Entranced98 (talk) 01:15, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Entranced98, the problem was that (?!\skong) was left behind after EggRoll97 removed the Diddy meme regex from the filter, but they forgot to remove that negative lookahead. Because of this, the filter is stealth disabled, meaning that it doesn't disallow meme/slang vandalism on articles. Codename Noreste (talk) 03:53, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm fixing it. I'm cleaning up the filter so it'll take me more than a moment. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 05:37, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Looks far better with it separated by line in the string. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 15:43, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

@Entranced98: It should be working again. Thanks for the report. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 06:29, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting it out, much appreciated! Entranced98 (talk) 07:15, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

The new split-up pattern looks much better, I appreciate it. Codename Noreste (talk) 14:01, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Improving Filter 894

I looked at Filter 188 on the Japanese Wikipedia and noticed that users who cite FC2 blogs will trigger that filter. If we generally do not cite blogs, I suggest we add FC2 to Filter 894 (hist · log) on the English Wikipedia. Z. Patterson (talk) 05:49, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Do you have any diffs of people adding unreliable blogs to enwiki. I'm asking because it's easier to make regex with sample edits we know should be disallowed. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 15:19, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

@PharyngealImplosive7: I have a list of search results that mention "blog.fc2.com" here. Z. Patterson (talk) 16:37, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Regex to add to the filter (specifically to the selfpuburl variable): blog\.fc2\.com. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 20:58, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

@PharyngealImplosive7: That could work. Alternatively, we could write blog[0-9]*\.fc2\.com in the selfpuburl variable. Z. Patterson (talk) 22:18, 16 February 2025 (UTC)