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 1338 — Actions: warn; Pattern modified

Last changed at 03:48, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

Filter 869 — Pattern modified

Last changed at 21:32, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Filter 1132 — Pattern modified

Last changed at 21:18, 24 August 2026 (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 or an edit filter helper if you have specific concerns or questions about the content of hidden filters.

---

There are currently 371 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. ().

Click here to start a new discussion

MediaWiki and 942

MediaWiki namespace edits don't appear on 942 (hist · log). My understanding is that the pages are fully-protected by default and thus require use of administrative privileges. Is there a reason these aren't logged at 942? And if not, can they be added to the filter? It seems to fit within the spirit of what 942 is intended to do. Left guide (talk) 05:10, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

This is fairly technically easy to do. It was originally in the filter, actually, though it was pulled out. Courtesy ping to xaosflux. The main benefit here would be a more complete listing in the filter hits for non-admin review of admin actions. The other consideration, I imagine, would be whether this is easier for the bureaucrats when reviewing the inactive administrator listings. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 04:08, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

I think it is likely due to the same problem as in phab:T216827. We know that that ns is protected though, so it is already easy to see in Special:Contributions. — xaosflux ^Talk 09:26, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

And recent edits to any specific namespace can be reviewed via Special:RecentChanges. Regarding changes to 942, we'd have to exempt MediaWiki:GrowthMentors.json and any other pages that allow non-administrator edits. I would prefer to leave 942 unchanged unless there's a request from the bureaucrats to expand the filter. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 17:37, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

In that case, I left a note at the bureaucrats' noticeboard inviting them to this discussion. Codename Noreste (talk • contribs) 19:46, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't think crats are the audience for that filter. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:05, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Barkeep49, this filter was explained to me as being useful as an input to confirm administrator inactivity. Is that not the case? If it's not actually used for that then it seems like the primary use case is review of administrator actions, and we could consider exempting some pages to focus the hits a bit more. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 21:22, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. I couldn't connect why (missed it in Eggroll's message). That is useful. It doesn't currently appear to be considered by the bot. JJMC89 I am wondering if that could be changed. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:04, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, similarly to Daniel, I thought this was the primary reason it existed. Of course, I do note it is nice to have as a "log" of admin actions in general in the spirit of public transparency and all, but if T216827 is fixed, a filter change is likely unnecessary to achieve that secondary purpose. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 01:10, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

This is a bit more for transparency - is is very easy to see if admins modify mediawiki namesapce pages, but it has been historically difficult to see if old revisions also overrode protection. In general, protected pages (especially articles) should only be edited by admins for specific reasons - not just because someone who has the technical capability just wants to improve the page personally. The log is useful for manual reviews during things like resysop requests - but rare there. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:22, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

The bot only considers live edits in aggregate (in all namespaces) and all log actions, not specifically admin actions/edits per se (see its inactivity reports). So I'm not really sure how the filter would be useful to the bot, except for the highly unlikely scenario in which an admin's only edit that meets the activity criteria was made to a protected page that was later deleted. It should ideally take in to account deleted contributions too, but again, it's not often that one deleted edit is the difference between having the mop taken away for inactivity and retaining it. Graham87 (talk) 11:36, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

The bot already considers deleted edits. — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:09, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Why would the bot need to check this filter's hits? The admin activity criteria are based on all edits, not those requiring the tools. — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:08, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

The admin activity criteria are based on all edits, not those requiring the tools. It's actually based on both, as there are separate admin activity criteria for regular edits and those requiring the tools. Left guide (talk) 19:17, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

For C1, you must have no edits and no admin actions, so any edit is sufficient to be considered active, regardless of use of the tools. — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:36, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

 Not done. Based on the discussion, it does not seem like we need to make any changes to the filter. I did update the notes for the filter. Thanks, everyone. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 20:06, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Special:AbuseFilter/762

Please remove the tag action from that filter; it is impossible to tag edit filter log entries while disallowing. Thank you. Codename Noreste (talk • contribs) 23:06, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Why does this need to be fixed? The disallow action could be toggled off again. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 23:52, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

I agree with Daniel Quinlan that there's no need to remove the tag from the filter. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 00:54, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Filter 614

I think it's a good idea to make the draft namespace exempt from this filter as I see way too many false positive reports at WP:EFFPR (with many of them being from page creations). --Prothe1st (leave me a message)-- 14:55, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

I'll start working on this. Perhaps we can exempt page creation edits and edits from recent editors or something like that. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 17:09, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

IMO, its a bit more complicated than exempting the draft namespace. Things like Special:AbuseLog/44938362 and Special:AbuseLog/44923161 shouldn't be let through IMO, but things like Special:AbuseLog/44931737 probably should. Perhaps something like only letting sourced drafts through? 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 19:32, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

With that specific example, I'm honestly not sure why we prohibit "yall". I could see many good-faith usecases for that specific word/contraction, so it may honestly be better to just remove instances that come up frequently in false positive reports. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 19:48, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

The vast majority of the hits in draft space are true positives. I reviewed the last 25,000 matches and I found 3 false positives out of 136 matches dependent on the \byall+\b part of the pattern. Anyhow, all of them were similar to the one at Special:AbuseLog/44931737 and they're fixed now. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 04:19, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Requesting Edit Filter Helper

Earliest closure has started. (refresh)

WikipediholicRat (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · ev · fm · mms · npr · pm · pc · rb · te · taiv)}

Hi! I do counter-vandalism around here, and oftentimes see that something has trigerred the edit filter. If it's a false positive, or if I'm not sure why, I use a tool called AbuseFilter analyzer to check what caused the filter to be triggered. However, I've seen a lot of private filters, which makes this much more difficult.

I would like to work on looking through false positive reports and fixing any genuine false positives. I'm a programmer, and know my way around regular expressions. I also would like to be able to understand why private filters were triggered. For these reasons, I would like to be an edit filter helper. WikipediholicRat (talk) 21:56, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

@WikipediholicRat: You've made one edit total to the false positives page. Can you elaborate on what need you have for access to private filters? EggRoll97 ^(talk) 02:26, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

I understand the desire to understand why filters are triggered, but I don't see the edit filter involvement or substantial EFFPR work that I would generally expect to see well before supporting a request for EFH. Your relatively short account history also gives me pause. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 07:34, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Okay. I'll work more on edit filters, but I won't deny that part of the reason I'm asking is from an unshakeable desire to find out how stuff works. WikipediholicRat (talk) 11:15, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

And that's understandable, but private filters often have conditions that need to be hidden from the public, because the targets of those filters would love to get access to the code of the filter to get around it. This permission would give you access to all of those filters, so it's necessary to be very hesitant about giving EFH out. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 16:19, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

That makes sense. I do want to help fight vandalism, and don't want to leak anything. I also have some ideas, like introducing a small amount of randomness to private filters to make them more difficult to reverse-engineer. At the end of the day, I probably wouldn't give myself EFH either, but that doesn't stop me from trying. I will still likely reapply in the future, and would still hope to get it. WikipediholicRat (talk) 16:25, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Oppose per the comments above. Codename Noreste (talk • contribs) 15:14, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Oppose due to low participation with edit filters and OP being a relatively new account (created in March of this year) – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 20:09, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Oppose Fairly new account, not nearly enough experience, unfortunately. Work on the experience, get a lot more, and I really would hope to see an aspiring filter helper come back with the right level of experience and support. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 23:56, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Oppose, would prefer to see more activity at WP:EFFP and helping with the current filters. Ternera (talk) 17:26, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Lake Ontario

The latest development in the US administration's renaming obsession, already has had to be protected. Please add to filter 1338, since it will spread to any related topic. Acroterion (talk) 13:25, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

 Done. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 16:50, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Request for Edit Filter Helper (45dogs)

There are 3 days, 16 hours, 9 minutes and 30 seconds until earliest closure. (refresh)

45dogs (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · ev · fm · mms · npr · pm · pc · rb · te · taiv)}

I'd like the edit filter helper right primarily to help in responding to private filter false positive reports at WP:EFFPR, and I would also like to have the ability to track some private filters for counter-vandalism purposes. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 17:32, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Support we need more helpers. ^MetalBreaks_AndBends (One for all) 20:58, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Support I've noticed their contributions to EFFPR, and they seem to be level-headed and good at this line of work. Good luck. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 20:11, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Support They have over a thousand contributions to EFFPR, and like EggRoll says, they seem pretty high-quality and level-headed. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 20:24, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Support. I believe granting this right to 45dogs will help improve the project. Thanks for the help on WP:EFFPR, 45dogs! Daniel Quinlan (talk) 21:07, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

That's fine with me. No objections here. Codename Noreste /// ⭐️✨ 00:54, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Hidden emails filter missed something

Though private filters aren't directly discussed in public so that LTAs can't learn to easily bypass them, just wanted to bring it to attention to the EFM people that it missed the above and might need some tinkering. Gatemansgc (TɅ̊LK) 03:27, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm working on this now, thanks. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 04:20, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

You're welcome! Dang, a full oversight block for that edit. I'm glad I could point it out though. I can imagine that filter is there to stop a TON of spam/scam stuff. Gatemansgc (TɅ̊LK) 04:28, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

 Done. After further investigation, I updated the block reason. Anyhow, I've updated the filter to avoid some false negatives including this one. It needs more work, but there's always more work somewhere. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 05:22, 29 August 2026 (UTC)