Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested: Difference between revisions

Temporary accounts have been around for the past six days, so editing an IP’s user or user talk page or mentioning a specific IP in your edit summary should be spurious (or potentially even harmful if you are connecting a temporary account to its IP). Some examples of such edits (where a temporary account is replying to a message originally on an IP’s user talk page) can be found [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?userExpLevel=unregistered&hidemyself=1&hidebots=1&hidecategorization=1&hideWikibase=1&namespace=3&limit=500&days=7&title=Special%3ARecentChanges&urlversion=2 here] [[User:Duckmather|Duckmather]] ([[User talk:Duckmather|talk]]) 23:01, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Temporary accounts have been around for the past six days, so editing an IP’s user or user talk page or mentioning a specific IP in your edit summary should be spurious (or potentially even harmful if you are connecting a temporary account to its IP). Some examples of such edits (where a temporary account is replying to a message originally on an IP’s user talk page) can be found [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?userExpLevel=unregistered&hidemyself=1&hidebots=1&hidecategorization=1&hideWikibase=1&namespace=3&limit=500&days=7&title=Special%3ARecentChanges&urlversion=2 here] [[User:Duckmather|Duckmather]] ([[User talk:Duckmather|talk]]) 23:01, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

== Example.com in references ==

Below text has been ”shamelessly ”stolen from @[[User:Chaotic Enby|Chaotic Enby]], who wrote a similar request last August[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_filter/Requested/Archive_21#c-Chaotic_Enby-20250827195100-example.com] that got archived.

*”’Task”’: “Add example.com links to [[Special:AbuseFilter/1346]]” -CE (NB: this will produce false positives when people copy-paste infoboxes or start referencing sandboxes. I filter those out in manual searches by looking for “url=https://example” specifically doing this search[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?sort=create_timestamp_desc&search=insource%3A%22url%3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.example%22+-%22sample+page%22+-%22referencing+sandbox%22&title=Special%3ASearch&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1&ns2=1&ns118=1])

*”’Reason”’: “example.com is often used as a placeholder URL in AI-generated content, being hidden in genuine-looking formatted citations and thus hard to notice”- CE

*”’Diffs”’:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pandaemonium_(film)&diff=prev&oldid=1296739707][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gardo_Versoza&diff=prev&oldid=1317460946][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Karate_in_Bihar&diff=prev&oldid=1313093973][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Running_with_the_Wolves_2025_(TV_Series)&oldid=1305075096] + [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Diff/1298596984] (admin eyes only)

[[User:GreenLipstickLesbian|<span style=”color:#EB0533;”>GreenLipstickLesbian</span>]][[User Talk:GreenLipstickLesbian|💌]][[Special:Contribs/GreenLipstickLesbian|🦋]] 03:48, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

== 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.
~~~~

Archives

Index

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be auto-archived by ClueBot III if there are more than 1.

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

  user_blocked should fix that issue. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 01:27, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Testing at 1389 – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 01:36, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I would probably recommend that we place user_blocked at the bottom of the filter, since it might be slow in performance. Codename Noreste (discuss • contribs) 01:39, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  mw:Extension:AbuseFilter/Rules format never specifies that user_blocked is slow in performance. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 01:42, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  user_blocked is a lazy-loaded variable and might perform a database query to get the block status (User::getBlock()). Of course, added_lines and removed_lines are 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  user_blocked doesn’t solve the problem the Black Kite brought up. This situation is:

  1. Block #1
  2. Appeal #1 (declined)
  3. Block #1 expires
  4. Block #2
  5. Appeal #2 (declined)

  user_blocked is true, 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

• We should use lcase(added_lines) if we use in or contains, but I am also suggesting changes to the filter:

  page_namespace == 3 &
  page_title == user_name &
  !("bot" in user_groups) &
  lcase(removed_lines) contains "{{unblock reviewed" &
  !(lcase(added_lines) contains "{{unblock reviewed" &
  user_blocked == true

  I also added page_title == user_name because 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)[reply]

  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 lcase to the filter as you suggested though. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 20:13, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:57, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Any diffs of users adding U6 and U7 templates outside of user subpages? Codename Noreste (discuss • contribs) 23:11, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[1]. [2]. [3]. User at least noticed it afterward, on the second and third ones. —Cryptic 17:13, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Chaotic Enby and Cryptic: Testing at 1390 – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 20:05, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I wonder if it could be worth it to try:

!(page_namespace == 2) |
!(page_title contains "/")

to see if there are any hits (whether true or false positives) outside userspace?
Although now that I think about it, there will be performance issues, as we’re adding two irlike checks to every non-userspace edit. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:18, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I’ve updated the regex pattern to also detect the addition of {{csd-u6 and {{csd-u7 – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 20:31, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Here is the suggested change should there only be changes within others’ userspace pages:

equals_to_any(page_namespace, 2, 3) &
!(page_title contains "/") &
(
    pattern := "{{[\s_]*(?:csd|db)-u[67]";
    
    added_lines irlike pattern &
    !(removed_lines irlike pattern)
)

Codename Noreste (discuss • contribs) 01:35, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thanks @Jlwoodwa! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 01:30, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Task: To prevent labelling films as box-office bomb (“box office bomb”, “box-office bomb”, “box office disaster”, “box-office disaster”, “box office flop”, “box-office flop”). Applies to all film articles and targeted at editors who sensationalize box office outcomes.
• Reason: It violates WP:NPOV, specifically MOS:LABEL, WP:ASTONISH, and MOS:VULGAR. We have an article under the title because it is a commonly used term in the industry and movie discussion spaces. Bomb/disaster/flop are not terms fit for an encyclopedia. Similarly, we don’t use terms such as “superhit” or “blockbuster” to refer to successful films, unless they are attributed (such attributions should be used only if there are no other way to express the same). There are alternative neutral terms such as “commercial failure” or “underperformed”.
• Diffs: search1, search2, search3

The Doom Patrol (talk) 12:40, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That would be problematic. Whilst we probably shouldn’t be labelling films as such in Wikivoice, there is nothing to stop us writing an attributed “The film was widely described as a box office disaster”, if it was indeed widely described as such. I suppose you could create a filter which was set to tag only. Black Kite (talk) 15:26, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A warning and tag filter for the phrases that are most likely to be unsourced or violations of the MOS might be helpful. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 18:40, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Task: Prevent all editors from adding U+202F to any page. MOS:NBSP recommends U+00A0 19 kg or 19{{nbsp}}kg. If there is a real reason to use this character, then the more editor-friendly   wikitext should be used.
• Reason: AI
• Diffs: The first revision of Tuzla retirement home fire was detected as AI-generated

~2025-32105-73 (talk) 23:28, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would caution against disallowing all edits containing this character, as let’s say someone could be using it in a page about Unicode or something similar, but we could add it to one of the possible AI filters if there is consensus to do so. @~2025-32105-73: Could you please provide more examples of diffs if possible that use this space that are suspected to be AI generated so that we know that this is a common character used by AI? – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 03:53, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’d like to change my reason from “AI” to “potential copyvio”. I don’t know why this edit saying 400 kilometres used it to violate MoS, but this edit copied it directly from the source. It’s unnecessarily in the phrase “art from”, so it looks like a copy-and-paste tracking mechanism used by many websites.As above, a page about Unicode should use the HTML entity, because it’s sneaky to have different type of spaces in the wikitext. It might also be Microsoft Word doing this in one pre-ChatGPT era edit. insource:/ / unexpectedly returns 969 results, so perhaps it should tag/warn. ~2025-32105-73 (talk) 04:38, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary accounts have been around for the past six days, so editing an IP’s user or user talk page or mentioning a specific IP in your edit summary should be spurious (or potentially even harmful if you are connecting a temporary account to its IP). Some examples of such edits (where a temporary account is replying to a message originally on an IP’s user talk page) can be found here Duckmather (talk) 23:01, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Below text has been shamelessly stolen from @Chaotic Enby, who wrote a similar request last August[4] that got archived.

• Task: “Add example.com links to Special:AbuseFilter/1346” -CE (NB: this will produce false positives when people copy-paste infoboxes or start referencing sandboxes. I filter those out in manual searches by looking for “url=https://example” specifically doing this search[5])
• Reason: “example.com is often used as a placeholder URL in AI-generated content, being hidden in genuine-looking formatted citations and thus hard to notice”- CE
• Diffs:[6][7][8][9] + [10] (admin eyes only)

GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 03:48, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]