Wikipedia:Edit filter noticeboard

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16

Permissions archives (before 2013)

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be auto-archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Given that temporary accounts are coming on October 21, 2025, I would suggest implementing user_unnamed_ip to filters that use ip_in_range(s) in advance. In addition to that, I have some suggestions for filters that should target registered users:

• Filters that rely on user_editcount as a pre-filter should probably be changed to (user_type != "named" | user_editcount < [value]), given that for temporary accounts, checking for user_type will evaluate to true for unregistered users as opposed to user_editcount which will no longer work after temp. accounts' edits reach a certain number of edits.
• Similarly, filters that use user_age for registered accounts should probably be wrapped with (user_type == "named" & user_age </<=/>/>= [value]).

Codename Noreste (talk) 20:18, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I hadn't noticed that there's a dedicated noticeboard for Edit filter here! Moving my comment from WP talk:Edit filter:

There are just over 20 of them needing an update/verification. In T369611, you will find an instruction and the lists of filters. Because some are/may be private, only users with NDA access on Phab and subscribers can view the lists. If you'd like to help me, let me know and I will add you to the subscriber list. Thanks! SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 22:53, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SGrabarczuk (WMF): Could I get added to those two pastes on Phab? I've been meaning to ask for a while now, but it slipped my mind until I saw your post here. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 05:31, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@EggRoll97, thanks for raising your hand. Done! SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 11:06, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See the recent hits to filters Special:AbuseFilter/1212 and Special:AbuseFilter/117. There's some sort of mas attack going on targeting various BLPs with unsourced claims of death, all with the exact same edit summary "Heaven gained another angel". We're going to need a filter probably to block these edits on that identical summary, as all of the IPs are different from one another and thus range blocks aren't going to work, and I haven't figured out if there's even any common denominator as to which articles are being targeted. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 18:53, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking that stuff doesn't work because then you get "Heaven gaint an angel" and "𝐻𝑒𝒶𝓋𝑒𝓃 𝑔𝒶𝒾𝓃𝑒𝒹 𝒶𝓃 𝒶𝓃𝑔𝑒𝓁" and "Some completely unrelated edit summary". ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:58, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I would specifically request we don't block these, as that will just make future efforts in dealing with them more difficult. It's way easier to play whack-a-mole—if it's set to deny, we force them to change their behavior to something less predictable. Perryprog (talk) 19:00, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But how are we actually going to stop them? There's thousands upon thousands of IP addresses - we can't play whack-a-mole ad infinitum for hours on end. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 19:03, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We're stopping them right now. Their edits are being reverted in literal seconds, and IPs may be cheap but they aren't free. Not to mention if this isn't a fully automated attack (which it definitely isn't), there's a human on their end who will get tired of this. Perryprog (talk) 19:09, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some of that managed to stay for a few hours. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 19:11, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is unfortunate, but it's still trivial to find those once this was noticed. We really don't want to make it more difficult to find future instances by forcing this person to "evolve" the complexity of their vandalism. A person like this isn't going to be discouraged by an AbuseFilter saying "no"; they'll figure out what specific thing they're doing that's being triggered and then stop doing it. Perryprog (talk) 19:14, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, they're clearly not a new user. I noticed some of these proxies were blocked when ST47ProxyBot was still active, wonder if we can bring that back again. This is some vandalbot using LLMs (e.g. [1]) to rewrite article content. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 19:22, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ooo, good catch on the LLM usage! That does make things make a lot more sense now. I also didn't realize that ST47ProxyBot was retired, that is too bad; I get why, though. Perryprog (talk) 19:31, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working from quarry:query/97676, but they're hitting a few existing filters as well. These are proxies and should be blocked for a long time. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 19:10, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard § Addition of abusefilter-modify-restricted right to EFMs. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 09:24, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 1060 (hist · log)
• {{Db-c1}} (linked redirects: {{Db-catempty}} and {{Db-emptycat}})
• {{Db-empty}}

Should we perhaps set Special:AbuseFilter/1060 to allow the removal of WP:C1 tags? I've had to help some other users who properly followed the instructions given in the tag only to not be able to remove the tag. Those tags specifically inform users to populate the categories and remove and it doesn't look like an area that is or will ever be prone to abuse. I'm not super familiar with coding so apologies if this can't be done and I'm wasting time. Lynch44 01:35, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some links above. I'll note that Db-empty is also mentioned at WP:C1 as an alternative that becomes a C1 tag if placed in a category or a WP:A3 tag if placed elsewhere, though it seems the filter already allows the removal of Db-a1,a2,a3 tags so it should be safe to exclude too? – 2804:F1...5F:868A (::/32) (talk) 18:23, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]