Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested
This page can be used to request edit filters, or changes to existing filters. Edit filters are primarily used to address common patterns of harmful editing.
Private filters should not be discussed in detail. If you wish to discuss creating an LTA filter, or changing an existing one, please instead email details to wikipedia-en-editfilters
lists.wikimedia.org.
Otherwise, please add a new section at the bottom using the following format:
== Brief description of filter == *'''Task''': What is the filter supposed to do? To what pages and editors does it apply? *'''Reason''': Why is the filter needed? *'''Diffs''': Diffs of sample edits/cases. If the diffs are revdelled, consider emailing their contents to the mailing list. ~~~~
Please note the following:
- Edit filters are used primarily to prevent abuse. Contributors are not expected to have read all 200+ policies, guidelines and style pages before editing. Trivial formatting mistakes and edits that at first glance look fine but go against some obscure style guideline or arbitration ruling are not suitable candidates for an edit filter.
- Filters are applied to all edits on all pages. Problematic changes that apply to a single page are likely not suitable for an edit filter. Page protection may be more appropriate in such cases.
- Non-essential tasks or those that require access to complex criteria, especially information that the filter does not have access to, may be more appropriate for a bot task or external software.
- To prevent the creation of pages with certain names, the title blacklist is usually a better way to handle the problem - see MediaWiki talk:Titleblacklist for details.
- To prevent the addition of problematic external links, please make your request at the spam blacklist.
- To prevent the registration of accounts with certain names, please make your request at the global title blacklist.
- To prevent the registration of accounts with certain email addresses, please make your request at the email blacklist.
New IP user using wrong sources and/or IP vandals (Twinkle helper only)
[edit]- Task: What is the filter supposed to do? To what pages and editors does it apply? IP users and non autoconfirmed users
- Reason: Why is the filter needed? too many Twinkle instances of having to warn people (1 per 30 seconds)
- Diffs: Diffs of sample edits/cases. If the diffs are revdelled, consider emailing their contents to the mailing list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luna.t5 (talk • contribs) 14:17, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
- @Luna.t5: As it stands, your
Idea is not well explained. Could you please explain your idea better and provide diffs of what specific pattern of IP disruption you are referring to? – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 14:43, 9 October 2025 (UTC) - Note: Proposer has been indeffed for WP:CIR. Aydoh8[what have I done now?] 04:01, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
- @Luna.t5: As it stands, your
Brief description of filter
[edit]- Task: This new filter I am proposing disallows edits that introduce "harv or sfn error"s.
- Reason: Prevent errors.
- Diffs: E.g. this.
BodhiHarp 04:28, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- We already have 1254 (hist · log) that tags harv errors. Disallowing them would lead to blocking mostly good faith edits often from new contributors, who may not understand what they did wrong. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 05:11, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- A better idea would be for a bot to send a (Non warning) talk page message along with the tag 24.155.147.109 (talk) 17:38, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Adding a tag to filter 636
[edit]Filter 636 could also have a tag function besides the warning where the tag could read "(possible) unexplained content removal". However, because this filter is the fourth most triggered out of all the edit filters, this might lead to some issues, so I don't know whether to implement this or not. RaschenTechner (talk) 00:45, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Brief description of filter
[edit]- Task: What is the filter supposed to do? To what pages and editors does it apply?
It applies to people's user and user talk pages
- Reason: Why is the filter needed?
People are vandalizing the page with f word and other words in others user talk pages and that is WP:VANDALISM.
- Diffs: Diffs of sample edits/cases. If the diffs are revdelled, consider emailing their contents to the mailing list.
Here's this for example. Black0hole (talk) 17:26, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
- That is the same person.
- Please look at the ips and who is the primary editor.-Flower 24.155.147.109 (talk) 17:27, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Disallow removing declined unblock requests
[edit]Per WP:KEEPDECLINEDUNBLOCK. Draft code:
user_blocked &
("{{unblock reviewed" in removed_lines) &
! ("{{unblock reviewed" in added_lines)
* Pppery * it has begun... 15:50, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
- Comment Edge case: it is only disallowed to remove declined unblock requests for a current block. What if the user, although blocked now, is removing the ones from a previous block? Black Kite (talk) 16:06, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
user_blockedshould fix that issue. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 01:27, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
Testing at 1389 – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 01:36, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
- I would probably recommend that we place
user_blockedat the bottom of the filter, since it might be slow in performance. Codename Noreste (discuss • contribs) 01:39, 31 October 2025 (UTC)- mw:Extension:AbuseFilter/Rules format never specifies that
user_blockedis slow in performance. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 01:42, 31 October 2025 (UTC)user_blockedis a lazy-loaded variable and might perform a database query to get the block status (User::getBlock()). Of course,added_linesandremoved_linesare also lazy-loaded vars, and the substring search might not be any faster than the database query. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 01:51, 31 October 2025 (UTC)- Also at some point in the process of making an edit it already checks whether the user is blocked for obvious reasons. It's possible the database query from that is cached. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:47, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
- mw:Extension:AbuseFilter/Rules format never specifies that
- I would probably recommend that we place
user_blockeddoesn't solve the problem the Black Kite brought up. This situation is:- Block #1
- Appeal #1 (declined)
- Block #1 expires
- Block #2
- Appeal #2 (declined)
user_blockedistrue, but they're well within their rights to remove appeal #1. Also, I think there are some IAR exceptions that no filter can account for. Say the user was editing under their real name, it's been years, they have no intention of editing ever again, but just want to do quietly do away with that page where they're called "incompetent" (or worse) by multiple people? Are we really going to make them carry the badge of shame forever, because rules? No objection to a tagging filter, though, if it helps reviewing admins find removed requests. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:03, 5 November 2025 (UTC)- Yeah, I think you are right and that this filter will probably never be set to disallow, but a tagging or logging-only filter may be useful. It's also worth noting that all hits so far have been true positives. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 01:22, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
- We should use
lcase(added_lines)if we useinorcontains, but I am also suggesting changes to the filter:I also addedpage_namespace == 3 & page_title == user_name & !("bot" in user_groups) & lcase(removed_lines) contains "{{unblock reviewed" & !(lcase(added_lines) contains "{{unblock reviewed" & user_blocked == truepage_title == user_namebecause without it, it would not only prevent the user from removing a declined unblock request From their talk page, but from others' user talk pages as well. Codename Noreste (discuss • contribs) 20:03, 1 November 2025 (UTC)- In the vast majority of cases, the user will be unable to edit other talk pages, but I guess in the case of partial blocks, having a check that they are editing their own talk page would be useful. And I doubt that bots should be exempted from this rule also (why would they be removing declined unblock requests off their talk page if they are blocked?) I've also added
lcaseto the filter as you suggested though. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 20:13, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
- In the vast majority of cases, the user will be unable to edit other talk pages, but I guess in the case of partial blocks, having a check that they are editing their own talk page would be useful. And I doubt that bots should be exempted from this rule also (why would they be removing declined unblock requests off their talk page if they are blocked?) I've also added
Warn for U6 and U7 outside of user subpages
[edit]- Task: Warn users adding {{db-u6}} or {{db-u7}} outside of user subpages
- Reason: The new speedy deletion criteria WP:U6 and WP:U7 only apply to user subpages, but replace U5 (which also applied to userpages) and editors might be unfamiliar with the differences. To avoid mistagging, an edit filter was suggested by @Cryptic at Wikipedia talk:Speedy deletion#c-Cryptic-20251030184600-Tamzin-20251030172300. Warning (instead of disallowing) is necessary to avoid false positives with users working on technical tests
- Diffs: Wikipedia:Database reports/Possibly out-of-process deletions/U6
Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:57, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
- Chaotic Enby, are you clarifying that this should apply to all namespaces except user subpages? Codename Noreste (discuss • contribs) 22:12, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
- I presume it will only really be tripped in user space, but maybe also user talk space. I don't think there is any performance issue with having it activate outside user space, as that will be the first check either way. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:25, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
- Any diffs of users adding U6 and U7 templates outside of user subpages? Codename Noreste (discuss • contribs) 23:11, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
- [1]. [2]. [3]. User at least noticed it afterward, on the second and third ones. —Cryptic 17:13, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
- @Chaotic Enby and Cryptic:
Testing at 1390 – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 20:05, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks! I wonder if it could be worth it to try:to see if there are any hits (whether true or false positives) outside userspace?
!(page_namespace == 2) | !(page_title contains "/")
Although now that I think about it, there will be performance issues, as we're adding twoirlikechecks to every non-userspace edit. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:18, 1 November 2025 (UTC)- Taggers and patrolling admins are usually pretty good about getting the namespace right, though you do see the occasional draft tagged db-a10 or such. The subpage part is more likely to be abused.I'm somewhat more concerned about the templates' redirects; they each have one (tm:csd-u6 and tm:csd-u7 respectively), and speedy deletion tags tend to slowly accumulate more. Edit filters can't check for categorization, or transclusion directly, can they? —Cryptic 20:26, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
- I've updated the regex pattern to also detect the addition of
{{csd-u6and{{csd-u7– PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 20:31, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
- I've updated the regex pattern to also detect the addition of
- Yeah, it could be worth it to test for FPs outside userspace, but they aren't too likely to occur intentionally. I'll see how many are caught by the filter after around a month and if the condition is catching a lot of edits outside userspace, I'll keep it there, but if it isn't (as I suspect it won't), I'll remove it. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 20:27, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
- Taggers and patrolling admins are usually pretty good about getting the namespace right, though you do see the occasional draft tagged db-a10 or such. The subpage part is more likely to be abused.I'm somewhat more concerned about the templates' redirects; they each have one (tm:csd-u6 and tm:csd-u7 respectively), and speedy deletion tags tend to slowly accumulate more. Edit filters can't check for categorization, or transclusion directly, can they? —Cryptic 20:26, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks! I wonder if it could be worth it to try:
- @Chaotic Enby and Cryptic:
- [1]. [2]. [3]. User at least noticed it afterward, on the second and third ones. —Cryptic 17:13, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
- Any diffs of users adding U6 and U7 templates outside of user subpages? Codename Noreste (discuss • contribs) 23:11, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
- I presume it will only really be tripped in user space, but maybe also user talk space. I don't think there is any performance issue with having it activate outside user space, as that will be the first check either way. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:25, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
- Here is the suggested change should there only be changes within others’ userspace pages:Codename Noreste (discuss • contribs) 01:35, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
equals_to_any(page_namespace, 2, 3) & !(page_title contains "/") & ( pattern := "{{[\s_]*(?:csd|db)-u[67]"; added_lines irlike pattern & !(removed_lines irlike pattern) )
Publifye 2
[edit]Please see the previous request, which got archived without a response. Publifye publishes AI-generated books with little to no human review, and some editors mistakenly believe them to be reliable and cite them. An edit filter that warned them of this and tagged these edits would be great. The reason I brought this up again, is because there has been another edit citing one of their books. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 12:13, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
Exempt U6 from 1060 (disallow CSD removal by page creator)
[edit]As U6 is pretty much the userspace equivalent of G13, the page creator is allowed to remove the tag if they want to keep working on the page. For that reason, Special:AbuseFilter/1060 should be edited to add U6 to the exceptions. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:42, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks @Jlwoodwa! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 01:30, 4 November 2025 (UTC)