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 22:24, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Filter 1013 — Actions: none; Flags: enabled

Last changed at 22:11, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Filter 1355 — Flags: private; Pattern modified

Last changed at 21:38, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Filter 1358 (new) — Actions: warn; Flags: enabled,public; Pattern modified

Last changed at 01:14, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Filter 1354 — Pattern modified

Last changed at 20:38, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Filter 869 — Pattern modified

Last changed at 03:52, 25 April 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 354 enabled filters and 48 stale filters with no hits in the past 30 days. Filter condition use is ~1007, out of a maximum of 2000. (). See also the profiling data and edit filter graphs.

Click here to start a new discussion

FilterDiff user script

I've been annoyed for a while by the endless scrolling through unmodified lines when reviewing changes to filters, especially for filters with long notes or many conditions. To improve the readability of edit filter diffs, I wrote User:Daniel Quinlan/Scripts/FilterDiff. The script hides unmodified lines that are far from changes, adds line numbers, and provides a toggle to view the full diff when needed.

Note that the script is currently in beta, so any feedback is appreciated. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 00:00, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for this script. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 22:30, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

¡Muchas gracias! I think both of your filter scripts can work globally, and for FilterBlame, I can provide a Spanish translation for that. Codename Noreste (talk · contribs) 22:46, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Con gusto. FilterDiff should work on non-English Wikipedia editions now. I did the absolute bare minimum of testing on a few editions, including Spanish and two that use non-Latin scripts (one of which is also right-to-left). Daniel Quinlan (talk) 08:39, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

FilterBlame user script

Trying to figure out when a certain condition was added to a filter so you can read the diff, improve your log analysis, or know who to talk to about an issue? User:Daniel Quinlan/Scripts/FilterBlame solves this problem. You can search using a substring or a regular expression, use binary or linear search, and search for insertions or removals.

Note that despite the name, "blame" is just the traditional term for this kind of functionality. It's about searching the history, not pointing fingers. As with the previous script, it's in beta. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 00:49, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for both of these. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 17:56, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

You're welcome. Please let me know if you run into any issues with either script. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 07:57, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Idea: Allow EFHs to enable 2FA

EFH is a user-group with access to fairly sensitive data, so in my opinion, it makes sense for EFHs to have the ability to enable 2FA (which would require the oathauth-enable right) without going through SRG. I'm not sure if this would require a phab ticket, but I'd like to understand all of your opinions relating to this before taking any concrete action. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 23:19, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

If you want 2FA just hop over to meta:Steward_requests/Global permissions#Requests for 2 Factor Auth tester permissions - it is pretty much given out on demand. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:37, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

I have to echo what xaosflux is saying here. While there's not really a downside to it, it's also not like there's any questions asked past "did you actually read the instructions?", and I can't remember the last time I saw a denied request for any reason other than not answering that question. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 01:01, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, you both are probably right that it's not that much work just to go to SRG. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 01:32, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Especially as this is such a niche group with only a handful not having that access elsewhere, adding custom config here for it is a bit of a waste. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:13, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

This is largely the problem I had with Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_217#Should_other_groups_be_able_to_use_2FA_by_default?, and while there's actually some more merit (at least security-wise) in the proposal of automatic 2FA access for EFHs, it still runs into the same problem of "why not just ask the stewards?" in every case. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 00:32, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

I've been assuming that EFH's will get forced to use 2FA as part of T150898. Nobody (talk) 05:37, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Metallum for filter 869

Moved from Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested/Archive 21 § Encyclopedia Metallum for filter 869

Encyclopedia Metallum, a.k.a. the Metal Archives, was deprecated by unanimous consensus in a 2025 RfC as a site rife with user-generated content and thus no hope of reliability. Because of the extensive use of the source in heavy metal and adjacent topics as discussed in the RfC, I believe this should be added to edit filter 869 along with the deprecation. Thanks! – Sparkle and Fade (talk • contributions) 05:33, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Probably we could just add metal-archives to the .com section of 869. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 18:02, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Y Done at Special:AbuseFilter/history/869/diff/prev/35824. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 22:39, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! – Sparkle and Fade (talk • contributions) 22:42, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Filter 1358

1358 (hist · log) This filter looks a bit confused to me. I just thought I'd point out that most WMF accounts aren't in the staff group, and I assume this filter is checking for basically all WMF accounts (meta:Category:Wikimedia_Foundation_staff). All WMF accounts for the past several years are trailed with '-WMF', and before that ' (WMF)'. Anything containing 'WMF' is restricted in the global title blacklist, however, it seems older accounts with this string were grandfathered. Plus there's WMFOffice of course, who is in the staff group. Maybe a combination of those two endings, _or_ the staff group, would satisfactorily cover this filter's intentions? ('staff' in global_user_groups or user_name rlike '[\(-]WMF\)?$') (untested). Pings@Sohom Datta and Daniel Quinlan: -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:22, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

I was going to make a post or ask Sohom Datta, but you beat me to the punch. One of my main concerns with the regex approach was older accounts. I think it will be safe to use a regex on the username (and nothing else) if we exempt a complete list of any grandfathered accounts at the end. We can also exempt WMFOffice.

I should mention that I'm not entirely sure that we need this filter. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 23:47, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

I do agree with your concern about the raw WMF regex, and your last point. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:06, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Well, there were some grandfathered accounts (credit to this query by AntiCompositeNumber), but none have edited in a decade. Nevertheless, I occasionally see a long dormant account become active again so I included them as exceptions. It's basically free to put them at the end of the filter. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 00:42, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

I think it's a nice to have, especially for folks who have dual roles (both as a community member and a WMF employee) and the catalyst was Seddon mentioning on Discord that they had accidentally edited a normal article through their staff account. Sohom (talk) 00:07, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

The original vision was only for the article-space (for context). Sohom (talk) 00:08, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

I reviewed edits by staff members. Based on those edits, I think it's also worth warning for edits to several other namespaces so I expanded the filter to cover several namespaces in addition to article space. If that looks okay to everyone, I'll update the warning template as well. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 00:47, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

It might be worth it to also change the warning message (and move the mediawiki page): currently it just mentions the mainspace, since the filter has been expanded to other namespaces. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 00:52, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

I think that's what I just said? Anyhow, I'll go ahead with those changes. We can always revise the template text later. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 00:56, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Yeah. I had an edit conflict, so I didn't really read your response. Sorry. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 00:59, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

No worries. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 01:15, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

I wonder if this is such a good idea. If they're removing links to CSAM, or something else we can all agree is oversight-worthy, they have to now remember to oversight their own filter log entry, too, or the material will still be available in old_wikitext. I see there's an exception for summaries such as "office action" and WMFOffice, but are such removals always made with those summaries, or that account? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:12, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

This, but I'm also not sure WMF staff should really need a reminder that they should be using their volunteer accounts for non-official actions. Are WMF staff not trained not to use official accounts for volunteer actions? This seems like foisting a lack of sufficient Foundation training onto the community. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 19:24, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Filter 1355 to disallow

1355 (hist · log)

I propose setting filter 1355 to disallow, which currently logs AfD closures by anonymous users, which are inappropriate NACs, and thus are revertible when done, and are generally disruptive. This was originally discussed at Wikipedia:Edit_filter/Requested#AfD_closures_by_anonymous_users, and I'm bringing it here for the extra visibility on the main noticeboard prior to setting to disallow. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 19:27, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

I support this, as long as we use a custom disallow message to be less bitey to good-faith IPs trying to close an AfD. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 21:48, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

(1) Shouldn't that use added_lines_pst instead of added_lines? This filter will only catch users who cut-and-paste Template:Afd top instead of substing it. (2) Are there non-LTAs doing this regularly? If this is mostly an LTA thing, the filter should probably be private+log-only per WP:NOSALT. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 01:31, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Changed to added_lines_pst, thanks for that. As to 2, I can't really tell. Possibly, I guess, though it's definitely a broader scope than just LTAs (IPs shouldn't be closing discussions regardless, as BD2412 mentioned on EFR). No objections to setting as private, but I didn't see it as necessary at the time since it seemed to be more of a general prohibition than targeting a specific LTA. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 02:09, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

While looking at the current hits, I've noticed that most of the hits show IPs adding a 'no consensus' result to an AfD. I'm not sure if that is an LTA or just an odd coincidence, so I'm fine with making it private or keeping it public. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 03:09, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

For any EFHs/EFMs looking at this conversation, also see [1] on the mailing list regarding this filter. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 03:52, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

I've sent a reply on the mailing list, and while I won't copy the entire comment here, it generally reiterates what I've said above. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 06:06, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

No objection to marking it as private, see my thread on the mailing list. Codename Noreste (talk · contribs) 00:15, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

The filter has been set to private. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 23:12, 28 April 2025 (UTC)