Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested/Archive 20

Special:AbuseFilter/627
Can the phrase "contact us" be added to this filter? Contact information is almost never appropriate to insert to an article, and I would have expected a page such as User:Myhomewatch/sandbox to have triggered this filter for containing this phrase.  Mori Calliope fan   talk   18:27, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * That might be a little tricky. Contact us frequently appears inside of references (why it does or whether or not it ever should is another matter). OhNo itsJamie Talk 18:51, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I wonder if negative lookbehinds/aheads could be used? Refs are tricky to parse, though. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him &#124; talk) 04:09, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

EF 189 and ccnorm/norm
This filter should probably match a libelous edit like this: Special:Diff/1088504111. I saw ccnorm from mw:Extension:AbuseFilter/Rules format, and I think it can be used for this? Thanks. 0x Deadbeef 06:22, 7 July 2022 (UTC)


 * ccnorm can be wrapped around the added_lines and removed_lines. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him &#124; talk) 04:06, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Shouting outside of mainspace
–LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 23:01, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Task: Using Special:AbuseFilter/50 for shouting outside of mainspace
 * Reason: Typically just as disruptive as any other shouting.
 * Diffs: Special:Diff/1098440575


 * This would be quite easy to implement. Filter 50 could have "page_namespace == 0 &" fully removed, and MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning-shouting could have "for both articles and discussion pages" changed to "for all pages". I suggest utilizing filter 1 to test this, log-only. Pinging @TheresNoTime, if you're interested? 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him &#124; talk) 02:48, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, I've added it to Special:AbuseFilter/1, but I think this might be a fairly active/false-positive heavy idea. We'll see — TheresNoTime (talk • she/her) 10:25, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Most results so far have been positive, so I’m hopeful! 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him &#124; talk) 17:57, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Adding links to pornographic actors
Task: Tag edits that add links to articles in Category:Pornographic film actors Reason: Likely vandalism.Diffs: Special:Diff/1097645891</ul> <span id="0xDeadbeef:1658481388565:WikipediaBWLCLNEdit_filter/Requested" class="BawlCmt"><span style="font-family:Iosevka,monospace">0x Deadbeef 09:16, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @0xDeadbeef I don't think there's any way to check if a linked article is in a category so I think the only way to do this with edit filters would be to have a manually updated list which is probably not practical given the size alone.  09:34, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Based on similar experience with another film genre, such vandals may include one favourite name (along with others) in most edits. Could you identify such a name, without revealing it here?  Then, rather than check for the whole category, the filter could trigger whenever the vandal inserts the dominant member between the welcoming brackets of the receptive article. Certes (talk) 11:18, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Here's where I insert a "titular character" joke (for gender balance, since there are occasional complaints about too many dick jokes). 15:29, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * This could also just be a bot that runs on toolforge. <span id="0xDeadbeef:1658490715559:WikipediaBWLCLNEdit_filter/Requested" class="BawlCmt"><span style="font-family:Iosevka,monospace">0x Deadbeef 11:51, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Done. Contact me privately if you're interested in details.  04:44, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Account Simodmart*
maybe more ?
 * Task: not allow user to create an account with name "Simodmart"
 * Reason: user already created a lot of account on en.WP for self promotion. His accounts are automatically created on fr.WP (so we can't prevent creating account there) and use them to do his promotion.
 * Diffs: last known accounts :

Simodmart is also indefinitely blocked on ar.WP Supertoff (talk) 21:36, 3 August 2022 (UTC) (Sysop and Abuse Filter on fr.WP)


 * @Supertoff The user template pings so I won't be too detailed but I don't think a disallow filter is the best solution. Your list of accounts appears to be complete.  22:38, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I forgot the ping... I asked it because 3 of them were created in the past 2 days. Supertoff (talk) 08:42, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @Supertoff I sent you an email with my reasoning for why I don't think the disallow filter is the best option and something that should help you deal with the user.  08:55, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @PhantomTech I understand and tks for the query. I made an RCU on frwiki to check if there are other accounts in case of. Supertoff (talk) 09:06, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Requested import from testwiki
I've been working on and testing testwiki:Special:AbuseFilter/254. I think it's probably ready to be tested as log only after a quick check from someone else. It could compliment the suggested changes at, catching some possible bypasses. Some time in log only will help determine if the filter can be beneficial, what actions are appropriate, and if any additional exclusions are needed. 23:42, 8 August 2022 (UTC)


 * @PhantomTech, a few thoughts:
 * you should probably add  as the first condition
 * you could use  to get the section title from the summary (evaluates to false if nothing is found)
 * !(A|B) is equivalent to !A & !B, but the latter stops the test before evaluating B; if, which is a little expensive, finds the summary_section_title in old_wikitext,    won't need to be executed. Ponor (talk) 13:17, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * For the last point: If A doesn't short circuit, this would be a bug in the language, not a bug in PhantomTech's code. In other programming languages, both expressions would be equivalent. A being true will prevent B from being ran. <span style="font-family:Iosevka,monospace">0x Deadbeef 13:51, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * You're right. Got confused by edit filter's negative logic somewhere along the way. Striking out. Thanks! Ponor (talk) 14:32, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @Ponor Thank you, I added the action check, but not the regex based section title. I think using strpos and substr might have better performance over using regex, but I haven't tested it so I'm not sure. I'm not opposed to the change if it there isn't an actual performance difference or if people feel that it improves readability and that justifies any potential performance cost.  21:52, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Offensive edit summary
Shouldn't an existing filter catch ? Certes (talk) 10:23, 3 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Special:AbuseFilter/384 is probably the most relevant filter. It doesn't check summaries but I'm not sure if there's a reason for that. P HANTOM T ECH (talk) 19:31, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @PhantomTech, I think it's because it would FP for section edits that contain profanities. Someguy1221 commented in the notes about this. Perhaps this could be achieved through excluding hits if the profanities are found in the old wikitext or added ones? 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him &#124; talk) 03:48, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @EpicPupper Looks like you're right. Section names in edit summaries use a specific format so another option is to check if the  regex is not in a section (a simple but imperfect solution is adding   to the end) or to only run the test against the edit summary if it is not a section edit by replacing line 9 with:
 * 04:24, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me! 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him &#124; talk) 04:26, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Alternatively, if it's not too costly, you could create a variable which contains the summary with any /* ... */ removed and check that, to catch an edit summary like "/* Legitimate header */ Redacted is a butthole".  (I'm not familiar enough with EF syntax to code that.) Certes (talk) 12:24, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * This should do that
 * 21:40, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Made a small change.  02:52, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * This edit was caught by ("Disruptive edit summaries"), but they clicked past the warning. The question is, should 1086 be set to disallow? Out of the last 50 hits that saved,, ,  are the only ones that weren't reverted. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:57, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @Suffusion of Yellow I'm not sure. Thinking about it, a determined vandal will just change the edit summary to either bypass the filter or to not be a problem. Even if they correct the edit summary, that doesn't stop the edit itself from being problematic and so regardless of their choice a disallow won't stop a determined vandal. In addition, this filter's detection of bad edits to articles depends entirely on the edit summaries, any edit caught only by this filter could be made with a meaningless edit summary and that takes away an indicator to rc patrollers that it is a bad edit.
 * Disallows are useful when they're very effective at detecting the goal behavior, for example editing another user's user page, but when the goal is any kind of vandalism there is a tradeoff because some edits will be stopped but others will be made in a potentially less obvious way. So I'm not sure what the best solution is for this case but a warn + rate limit triggered short temporary block would be nice, though we can't do that currently.
 * I know there are currently disallow filters for generic vandalism but since this filter's conditions are based only on edit summary, I'm not sure that the same justification someone would use for setting those filters to disallow could apply to this one.  00:03, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Disallows are useful when they're very effective at detecting the goal behavior, for example editing another user's user page, but when the goal is any kind of vandalism there is a tradeoff because some edits will be stopped but others will be made in a potentially less obvious way. So I'm not sure what the best solution is for this case but a warn + rate limit triggered short temporary block would be nice, though we can't do that currently.
 * I know there are currently disallow filters for generic vandalism but since this filter's conditions are based only on edit summary, I'm not sure that the same justification someone would use for setting those filters to disallow could apply to this one.  00:03, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Prevent manual addition of automatic mediawiki categories
--Ahecht (<span style="color:#FFF;background:#04A;display:inline-block;padding:1px;vertical-align:-.3em;font:bold 50%/1 sans-serif;text-align:center">TALK PAGE ) 14:55, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Task: Prevent manual addition of categories listed at Special:TrackingCategories, which should only be automatically added by the mediawiki software.
 * Reason: These categories should never be manually added, as adding them manually clutters up tracking categories even after the issues with the page are resolved.
 * Diffs: One of those categories had to be removed Special:Diff/1063705433 here
 * Unarchiving. Please test with this code:
 * I used PetScan to get a list of the 55 categories; if new ones are added, they can be added to the filter later. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him &#124; talk) 01:55, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Logging at . Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:39, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Logging at . Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:39, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Disallow creation of redirects from User/User talk root page to Main Page
—Locke Cole • t • c 18:25, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Task: Disallow the creation of redirects from root User/User talk pages to Main Page (or any other page that suppresses the (Redirect from ...) verbiage). Applies to all editors, applies only to edits on root User/User talk pages.
 * Reason: Violation of WP:UP, interferes with interface, makes reaching an editor to contact them or collaborate with them difficult.
 * Diffs: 1 2, 3


 * Yeah, I will admit to doing that once (quite a while ago, I had a content dispute spillover onto my talkpage, and couldn't even edit it without hitting edit conflicts over and over). Tripping a filter would have let me know that what I was about to do was a really stupid idea. So I'll add a diff here
 * 4 Mako001 (C) (T)  🇺🇦 04:18, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Locke Cole Is there a list of pages that suppress "Redirect from"? You mention Main Page and I assume the special namespace does it too but it's not something I pay specific attention to. P HANTOM T ECH (talk) 04:32, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * apparently redirects to Special pages are not allowed by design: User:SPUI/random Not that I'm aware of, there is some discussion at this BOT request page about how the notice is suppressed. Ideally we wouldn't suppress the redirect notice at all, but I assumed (perhaps incorrectly?) there was a legitimate reason for Main Page to have that turned off. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:42, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Here's a filter for it. This catches any redirect from user root or user talk root to any destination outside of either of those two places. It does not catch a soft redirect. I can't move it here for testing because I don't have the permission. P HANTOM T ECH (talk) 05:57, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I would honestly just restrict it to redirects to Main Page. Other redirects are annoying, but produce the expected "(Redirected from...)" link that allows you to get back to the user page. Unless there's a consensus for disallowing them all, which I am not opposed to (because: WP:BEANS). —Locke Cole • t • c 15:55, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * If this is going to expand to not allowing redirects outside of ns2/3 at all: I don't think this should apply to ns2. — xaosflux  Talk 15:54, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Would you be fine with not allowing redirects to just Main Page from 2/3? —Locke Cole • t • c 15:57, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * As a note, I have no preference to how restrictive this should be other than redirects from root user talk to Main Page should not be allowed at a minimum, it just wasn't a big step up from that to what I made on testwiki so that's the filter I made. P HANTOM T ECH (talk) 19:50, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I know we're all volunteers here, but is there any timetable for when requests are acted on, or what does the process look like? —Locke Cole • t • c 19:57, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Logging at . Sorry for the delay. There just don't seem to be many active EFMs right now. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 18:16, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It's all good, I was worried about it getting archived more than anything. =) As it's just logging right now I'll need to periodically check the filter log to see if anyone has tripped it and revert as necessary, but it's a start. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:24, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @Locke Cole I see you've tested the filter here. I copied over the filter here to Special:AbuseFilter/251 without group exclusions because I wanted to test something. I don't think there's any issue with the edits you made here for your test but wanted to let you know that you have the option of doing any future or more extensive test on testwiki if you'd like to.  23:51, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Just a follow-up, but it looks like we've had a few hits in the log, but so far your basic new user errors, nobody trying the Main page redirect yet other than my one test. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:21, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Add "poo poo" to the poop filter

 * Task: Stop edits adding this string, by adding it to a "disallow" filter (such as the existing "poop" filter)
 * Reason: Because the poop vandalism filter doesn't catch it, and this is quite common.
 * Diffs:

Can this string ("poo poo") be added to the ones prevented by the "poop" filter? I see virtually no legitimate use for this string in mainspace. 💩 Mako001 (C) (T)  🇺🇦 12:20, 12 May 2022 (UTC)


 * just another example. Mako001 (C) (T)  🇺🇦 10:44, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Unarchiving. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him &#124; talk) 05:03, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Testing at . Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:28, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅. Added to . Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:30, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Sheesh
Add the word "sheesh" to the list of vandal meme phrases. It is often used in vandalism and has very few good users. aeschylus (talk) 17:49, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * EFMs, please test with the same code as Filter 614 but with "|s+h+e{2,}s+h+" appended to the search string. There can be an infinite amount of repetition of the string with this reegx, e.g. "sheesh", "shhheeeessssshh", or "sshheeesssssssshhh". 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him &#124; talk) 05:13, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Testing at . Will probably need a word boundary or negative lookbehind; hasheesh is an alternative spelling of hashish. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:31, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @Suffusion of Yellow so far hits seem to be all non-FPs. Thoughts? 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him &#124; talk) 20:18, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅. Added to 614. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:12, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

The word ‘singao’
Helen (💬📖) 23:57, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Task: Warn and tag as possible vandalism when a non-autoconfirmed user adds the word 'singao' into a Cuba-related article.
 * Reason: 'Singao' is a vulgar Spanish word used in Cuba, meaning something to the extent of 'motherfucker'. It's a term frequently used to vandalise pages related to Cuban politics.
 * Diffs: Special:Diff/1096814939, Special:Diff/1089277019
 * This should work:


 * Cheers, and thanks EFMs in advance. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him &#124; talk) 04:02, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Testing (on all pages) at . Oddly we don't have a filter for Spanish profanity; maybe we should? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:23, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Only three hits in a week, all from the one IP, to the same page as your diffs. Probably better to request semi-protection of that page is this persists. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:05, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Requested Update to Filter 614

 * Task: Match LMFAO
 * Reason: Currently matches LMAO but not LMFAO
 * Diffs: Special:Diff/1098091075
 * Regex should become:

It's really hard to see the change because of the regex length, to clarify the change the current segment  should become     05:23, 14 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Testing at . Might be false positives related to LMFAO. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:26, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Added to 614. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 18:56, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

SCP vandalism?
This is infrequent enough that I'm not really sure if an edit filter is justified, but would it be worth it to have a filter that tags additions of strings like "keter", "overseer council", "secure. contain, protect" etc. to pages with SCP in the title other than SCP Foundation and SCP: Containment Breach? See, for example,,. casualdejekyll 03:17, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That's one of the weirdest types of vandalism I've ever seen. Stifle (talk) 14:10, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not all that different to something like what happened with Bishop Auckland. Internet memes are inevitable, and Wikipedia is on the internet. casualdejekyll  23:37, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Unarchiving. This should work:


 * This checks for "keter", "overseer council", and "secure. contain. protect" in pages other than SCP Foundation and SCP: Containment Breach. There can be any amount of spaces between the latter two. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him &#124; talk) 05:11, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Testing at Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:29, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * If it doesn't get any hits soon then don't worry about it. I think the stuff's infrequent enough to just not even justify it. (You might want to throw in "object class" too. just to see if there's any false positives.) @EpicPupper casualdejekyll  13:59, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I think limiting it to pages with "SCP" in the title will get a lot of false negatives, as seen with your second example. RteeeeKed 💬📖 22:10, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * No hits in week, apart from "cricketer". Seems this has died down. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 18:59, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it seems like the filter's unnecessary. Thanks for your time, though! casualdejekyll  19:01, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Update to Filter 384
HelenDegenerate (💬📖) 01:36, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Task: Add 'nutsack' or 'nut sack' (with spaces) into filter 384.
 * Reason: Commonly used in vandalism. I can't think of any legitimate uses for this word.
 * Diffs: Special:Diff/1104150480
 * Testing at . Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:32, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Only one hit in a week. I don't think this is worth filtering. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:00, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

"Everything" as an edit summary
Should be added to 970 or Common vandal summaries as nearly all edits with this summary are massive removal of content. BlueCrab RedCrab   22:35, 1 April 2021 (UTC)


 * @BlueCrabRedCrab: It would be nice to show some diffs. ~ Aseleste  (t, e &#124; c, l) 04:45, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Found one: Special:Diff/1016678619. ~ Aseleste  (t, e &#124; c, l) 14:19, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * thanks. -- BlueCrab RedCrab   01:57, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It looks like adding the phrase to Special:AbuseFilter/981 is reasonable. ~ Aseleste  (t, e &#124; c, l) 07:14, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Unarchiving. EFM, please test with the below in a test filter:
 * After a trial period, if this is successful, "|everything" can be appended to the match string of 981. Cheers, 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him &#124; talk) 01:41, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Testing (along with a few others) at . Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:16, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Added to, along with "nothing", "yes", "truth", and "ma[dk]e it better". Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:44, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Added to, along with "nothing", "yes", "truth", and "ma[dk]e it better". Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:44, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Unexplained content removal blocking

 * Task: Prevent removal of large amounts of content (let's say 100 bytes?) without explanation in the edit summary.
 * Reason: Should help with WP:UCR.
 * Diffs:   (There are way more I could've included but I don't want to waste my time looking for more diffs, can provide more if needed)  RteeeeKed 💬📖 17:02, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @RteeeeKed, filter 30 is currently set to warn and tag. Are you suggesting it be set to disallow? Cheers! 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him &#124; talk) 17:14, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, didn't know that existed. I think it should be disallowed with a message saying to explain why you removed the content. RteeeeKed 💬📖 17:16, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Not an edit filter expert, but I'll chime in to say that I that I don't think the filter should be set to disallow. Vandals who remove large parts of content tend to leave blank / vitriolic summaries, and preventing them from doing that might inspire them to write some semi-realistic explanation that would take more effort to deal with, because it wouldn't be tagged. casualdejekyll  22:59, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The threshold is set to 5000 bytes on the filter 30, so the filter has not been triggered for these edits. The threshold value may be discussed. On the other hand made good points. These edits are manually reverted by rollbackers in a seconds.  I normally follow-up these potential "vandals" and %99 percent of a time they would do other vandalism. Instead of disallow, setting to warn and tag is a good way to spotlight these potential vandals. --Assyrtiko (talk) 10:08, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

"Matthew Fagwell" vandalism
I've encountered a few instances recently of different editors adding a bogus name into articles. I'm not sure if this is a widespread thing recently or just a one-time spree, but considering it could be very easily missed I thought it'd be worth adding a request here, or at the very least adding it to an existing test filter temporarily to see if the edits subside. DatGuyTalkContribs 11:31, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You could also do an insource search: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=insource%3A%22Fagwell%22&title=Special:Search&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1 <span id="0xDeadbeef:1657885077735:WikipediaFTTCLNEdit_filter/Requested" class="FTTCmt"><span style="font-family:Iosevka,monospace">0x Deadbeef 11:37, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see why this couldn't be tested in a log-only filter. This should work.


 * Thanks EFMs in advance. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him &#124; talk) 04:04, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Don't know if this is still a thing, but testing at . Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:27, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * No hits in a week, though of course you can continue testing this yourself now. :-) Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 18:58, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Royal Central
I just closed WP:RSN with consensus to deprecate Royal Central (royalcentral.co.uk)—could it please be added to filter 869? Thanks in advance. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:09, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * ✔️ Looks to be already added by . Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:03, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Constantinople > Istanbul
Assyrtiko (talk) 09:44, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Task: Tag "Constantinople > Istanbul" edits
 * Reason: In 1930, Constantinople was renamed To Istanbul. It should be Kept as Constantinople in the related to articles referring before 1930 or It should be kept as Istanbul after 1930.
 * Diffs: 1
 * Example filter:
 * --Assyrtiko (talk) 09:45, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Your example checks if either Istanbul or Constantinople is present in any edited line both before and after the edit, regardless of if it was changed. A filter for this would either need to compare counts of Istanbul and Constantinople pre and post edit or use two or separated checks, one for each switch option.  10:36, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you Can you check the one below?
 * --Assyrtiko (talk) 11:13, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * This does the same check but adds the condition that there is one less total instance of the total count of "Istanbul"s and "Constantinople"s after the edit. Something like this would try to catch switching between the two:
 * It won't catch everything and would need to be tested/looked at by someone first but I think something along these lines is the best that the filters can do for this. My example also doesn't exclude based on confirmed status, it seems like this might be something that a more experienced user might do in good faith so I assume that should also be tagged, but that can be decided if it's decided that this filter should be added or tested.  19:52, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the logic in would make more sense? We don't want to flag simply adding or removing a sentence that happens to contain "Istanbul" or "Constantinople", right? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:01, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @Suffusion of Yellow It looks like 1154 won't catch any changes if there are any additions or removals of either option. I think you're right that my conditions would flag removals as long as added_lines still matched  but I don't think it'd match additions and I think the removal issue is fixed by converting   to be its absolute value. If fixed, my conditions should catch some changes even when there are additions or removals. I'm not sure how common those would be but I'm imagining someone adding a sentence or even a paragraph while also changing a bunch of instances in the rest of the article.   21:37, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @Suffusion of Yellow It looks like 1154 won't catch any changes if there are any additions or removals of either option. I think you're right that my conditions would flag removals as long as added_lines still matched  but I don't think it'd match additions and I think the removal issue is fixed by converting   to be its absolute value. If fixed, my conditions should catch some changes even when there are additions or removals. I'm not sure how common those would be but I'm imagining someone adding a sentence or even a paragraph while also changing a bunch of instances in the rest of the article.   21:37, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Unblock request rejection
The diff is a good example of several problems related to the unblock templates and their interaction with the reply tool, which I'm addressing elsewhere. In this case, it's clear the user used the "reply" tool, and pasted in the whole suggested unblock request. (That's why there are two signatures; one expanded from the cut-and-paste, and one added by "reply".) --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106;&#x1D110;&#x1d107; 22:18, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Task: Reject unblock requests of the form
 * Reason: Our standard block messages say, If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: Over the years, there's been language there to suggest that the user replace "your reason here" with their reason. It doesn't seem to matter; every day, while reviewing unblock requests, I see several of these. It's a minor waste of time for reviewers, and probably quite frustrating for the blocked user, who very much of the time is acting entirely in good faith. These are almost always naive users - naive enough that they don't then edit the request to make it useful. It's happening now much more often because of "reply"; a small portion of them are deliberate vandalism, and I guess this would stop that too.
 * Diffs:
 * Testing at . Before setting this to warn/disallow, we'll need to exclude requests like I should be unblocked because..." and whatever other "creative" ways people come up with to format their requests. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:19, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * We'll also want the same thing for unblock-spamun and unblock-un. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106;&#x1D110;&#x1d107; 01:20, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Now at . It looks most of what 1014 caught was, as I suggested, just people putting the reason outside of the template. I only found four truly blank requests. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:49, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. Might be too few to bother with? --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106;&#x1D110;&#x1d107; 01:22, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It's possibly that this filter is missing a large number of empty requests, for some reason I haven't thought of. Let me know if you spot any that aren't logged by . Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:05, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

"Boyfriend" filter
DH85868993 (talk) 10:11, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Task: Prevent the addition of File:Boyfriend-2.png to articles and/or edits with an edit summary of "BOY FRIEND!"
 * Reason: To combat an IP-hopping editor who replaces article contents with multiple instances of that file. The editor repeatedly gets blocked, but they just move to a new IP address.
 * Diffs: Special:Contributions/2A01:36D:1200:6A0:4CB9:746:CD2C:14F2, Special:Contributions/2A01:36D:1200:6A0:A597:F5DE:C684:5F34, Special:Contributions/2A01:36D:1201:243:787A:42B2:1278:C43D, Special:Contributions/2A01:36D:1201:243:E088:B4E0:B77E:6701
 * Let's try the bad image list first. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:29, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Great idea. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 22:37, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Additions to "bad words" filter(s)
Sumanuil. 02:44, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Task: Add "shite" and "arse" to filter 384 or another similar one.
 * Reason: These variants of words in the filter don't seem to be caught. They're getting tagged as "possible vandalism" instead, even when there's nothing "possible" about it.
 * Diffs:Special:Diff/1111217884
 * Testing at . Over 900 uses of each word in mainspace right now, so we'll have to see common these words are in unconstructive edits. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:03, 28 September 2022 (UTC)


 * : Is there some way to grandfather those in? Sumanuil. 01:26, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @Sumanuil: Yes, the filter already excludes edits to lines already containing a "bad word". The large number of existing uses is just a clue that adding these words might cause too many FPs, so testing is needed first. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:04, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Arse is just south of Saipar Dolok Hole. The shite is the principal character in a Japanese Noh play or the person who performs the technique in aikido.  However, most vandals probably don't intend those meanings. Certes (talk) 09:38, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Filter request
Hello, is it possible to add "Satpal Dhaliwal" and "Bhupinder Dulai" as bad words? These names keep being added by IP users to various luxury watchmaker articles (Rolex, Audemars Piguet, etc.) as the CEO, etc. As soon as an article's temporary protection is lifted, the name is edited back as CEO; when a few articles are protected, they find an article that is not protected to add themselves as CEO. It is very difficult to keep on top of this vandalism, especially as higher-profile articles become protected and the IP users seek out other watchmaker articles with fewer watchers--the edits stay up much longer because they aren't patrolled by nearly as many editors. Thank you. Spongeworthy93 (talk) 14:08, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Testing at (private). Nearly zero risk of FPs here based on a quick search. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:42, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * No hits in two weeks. Let me know if this starts up again. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:07, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

"Pornographique" vandalism
Sumanuil. 04:07, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Task: Add "pornographique", "children's nude" and "child nude" to filter 384 or another similar one.
 * Reason: IP-hopping vandal who just loves these words, pardon my faux-French.
 * Diffs: Special:Diff/1113864652, Special:Diff/1113140844, Special:Diff/1112918774, Special:Diff/1114683032


 * Second two seem like valid terms that can be used in articles about child porn. RteeeeKed 💬📖 18:34, 9 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Maybe, but not in, for example, List of Muslim Nobel laureates. That's what whitelists are for. Sumanuil. 20:51, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, ok. RteeeeKed 💬📖 21:55, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @Sumanuil: Logging at private filter . This sort of thing shouldn't be a general vandalism filter; sooner or later they'll go away and then everyone will wonder why that was there. OTOH vandals are going keep using the seven dirty words for a long time. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:04, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Replacing "Pakistan" with "Porkistan"
Sumanuil. 06:54, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Task: Exactly what it says on the tin. Add "Porkistan" to filter 384 or wherever it can be added.
 * Reason: No reason to put this in any article other than maybe List of ethnic slurs.
 * Diffs: Special:Diff/1117156477, Special:Diff/1114964469


 * Is this actually common enough to warrant an edit filter? We're running up against the condition limit already. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:16, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Re condition limit: can we safely disable any older filters? I recall requesting one several years ago to prevent an LTA from inserting certain children's characters into older media; that editor may now have grown up and either stopped or moved on to other spam more relevant to their current age.  That filter may now be redundant.  (It's private, so I can't check hits.) Certes (talk) 10:42, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Maybe not, but it still has no place here. Sumanuil. 21:18, 20 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Obviously, but at some point we're just wasting server time if this happens only once every other day or so. Reaper Eternal (talk) 22:11, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

It's worth a little "wasted server time" not to have to revert trolls. Sumanuil. 00:27, 21 October 2022 (UTC)


 * ❌. Insufficient disruption to warrant a filter. Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:28, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Requested edit filter for repeat vandal
― <b style="background:#0d1125;color:#51aeff;padding:1q;border-radius:5q;">Blaze Wolf</b>Talk<sub title="Discord Username" style="margin-left:-22q;">Blaze Wolf#6545 20:54, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Task: Stop the YT Tuzz vandal on Talk:Edge (wrestler) and it's main page.
 * Reason: This vandal repeatedly vandalizes the article and associated talk page for Edge (wrestler) with something relating to "YT Tuzz" despite multiple blocks on their IPs. Usually once they are blocked after a week or so they just return on a new IP, making the same edits.
 * Diffs: Most edits by this vandal have been revdel'd.


 * ❌. Seek page protection instead. Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:27, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

"Turning Red" vandalism
Taking Out The Trash (talk) 02:39, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Task: Block the addition of Turning Red is the worst film ever made in cinema history. in both article content and edit summaries
 * Reason: Not sure exactly if this is an LTA or a spambot attack or what, but it's occurring across multiple seemingly unrelated pages and from multiple IP addresses
 * Diffs: Special:Contributions/103.197.184.119 and Special:Contributions/75.31.24.140 are the two from tonight


 * I have a sneaking suspicion that this isn't the first time we've seen this person. DatGuyTalkContribs 06:57, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * with minimal changes. DatGuyTalkContribs 07:04, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Brief description of filter
47.229.255.219 (talk) 07:59, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 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.


 * The filter is working properly. Notable alumni means that they must be blue links. <span style="font-family:Iosevka,monospace">0x Deadbeef →∞ (talk to me) 11:13, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Adding an individual to the page. This person is a key alumni to the school, holding multiple athletic records.


 * Nicholas Dien, Class of 2022, All-Time Leading Scorer for the Edgewood Lions’ Basketball Team. Long Jump school-record holder. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.229.255.219 (talk • contribs)
 * ❌ School record holders are not inherently notable if they have not yet done anything in the real grown-up world that leads to notability. If this person ever does something that actually makes them notable, in whatever field, then and only then might they be added to the school's article with a link to the article about them and their actual notability. This also has nothing whatsoever to do with filters. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  03:55, 19 November 2022 (UTC)


 * This also has nothing whatsoever to do with filters - Just noting that they probably meant to post on WP:EF/FP, as suggested by their filter log in which they were disallowed when trying to add this to a page <span style="font-family:Iosevka,monospace">0x Deadbeef →∞ (talk to me) 05:11, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Warn new editors when publishing large edits marked as minor
Fun Is Optional (talk page) (please ping on reply) 01:55, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Task: Warn and/or tag minor edits made by new editors (not autoconfirmed) that are above a certain size (300 bytes? the amount is up for discussion)
 * Reason: A good number of new editors incorrectly mark large edits as minor
 * Diffs: Special:Diff/1122334265 Special:Diff/1122335397 Special:Diff/1122333220 Special:Diff/1122326832


 * -- per 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. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 03:05, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The reasoning doesn't have much to do with what I requested. While, yes, new editors are not expected to have read any policy, I think that having the warning to tell them that what they are doing might not be a minor edit will ensure that their edits (both now and future) get the standard scrutiny. In reality, I think the best solution to this is to clarify what it means on the edit summary box. Fun Is Optional (talk page) (please ping on reply) 04:40, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Feel free to propose changes to the interface. But this isn't abusive editing, and we aren't going to add friction to, and potentially lose, contributions just to make the editor double check if they really meant to tick 'minor'. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:43, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Brief description of filter
DavidWilliams7643 (talk) 22:38, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 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.

Requesting filtering needed for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inglorious due to vandalism, homophobic word and detrimental content from impersonated user name. Thank you.
 * ❌ This board is not for settling your content dispute. OhNo itsJamie Talk 22:54, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

IPs telling people to commit suicide
— <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)"> Red-tailed hawk (nest) 20:47, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Task: The filter is supposed to prevent IPs from being able to edit user pages and user talk pages to insert commands relating to the commission of suicide, such as "kill yourself", "unalive yourself", "hang yourself", etc., as well as phrases that fuzzy match it. The filter should deny such behavior.
 * Reason: This behavior is always abusive and uncivil and honestly there's no need for this to actually get through to a user's talk page.
 * Diffs:
 * Testing at private filter (along with a few other things that just occurred to me). Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:26, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Can we also extend this to registered and unconfirmed users as well as IPs? I don't see why we should be limiting this to just IPs. Autoconfirmed and up are probably fine, though. Also, I'd test out the filter, but I don't really want to expose my IP. Maybe we can temporarily extend it to extended confirmed users as well? RteeeeKed 💬📖 21:24, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Is there any reason why extended-confirmed users should be exempt from this filter? Mako001 (C) (T)  🇺🇦 13:15, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Having been around a while without getting blocked, we ECs are less likely to make unconstructive edits and more likely to show a false positive such as "Alice told Bob to go kill himself". Certes (talk) 14:52, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Adding illegal enterprise Capt. Ahluwalia Aviation Academy
Fight Island (talk) 04:24, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Task: Preventing addition of illegal enterprise Capt. Ahluwalia Aviation Academy at List of pilot training institutes in India.
 * Reason: Someone is adding an unlicensed and non-DGCA approved pilot training institute to List of pilot training institutes in India for credibility. It is a fraud institute asking high fee and offering "too good to be true" scholarships in their 3 websites (which I have asked to blacklist).
 * Diffs:


 * It looks like this has only happened twice in the last ten days, and the contributions from those IPs seem to be limited to just that page. I did an insource search on the partial name and it didn't bring up any hits. Per the header at the top of this page, Filters are applied to all edits. 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., so it would probably be better to seek page protection, unless I've missed something? Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:32, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * , page protected but came back again and it was accepted.--Fight Island (talk) 17:44, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Try requesting semiprotection rather than PC? as protecting admin. It's an esoteric abuse unlikely to be picked up by PC patrollers, who typically are meant to guard against blatant vandalism. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:45, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure, done. GeneralNotability (talk) 21:35, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Common spelling in English
 Schwede 66  02:03, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Task: Detect edit summaries that say "common spelling in English", "English spellings", and maybe variations of those.
 * Reason: Ok, longish story. In New Zealand, we use macrons for words that have their origin in the Māori language, which amongst other things changes pronunciation. Which isn't something that everyone agrees with as macrons aren't part of English as detractors argue. The use of macrons in New Zealand English is all codified in the New Zealand naming conventions and given that it's not uncontroversial, we went through a lengthy RfC in 2020 to establish consensus for macron use for place names (if you want to read the discussion, set aside 1hr +). We have an editor who utilises IP hopping who does not agree with this and he goes through articles and pipes geographic names so that macrons do not get displayed. This is low level vandalism and hard to detect as the link to the target article itself does not change. What seems to be case, though, is that this editor consistently uses "common spelling in English" as the edit summary. Hence, if an edit filter could track those edits, it would be easier to review whether there should be a macron and whether the IP edit should be reverted.
 * Diffs: ; ;
 * Page protection is not an option because this affects a high proportion of articles dealing with New Zealand subjects, and the anon isn't focussing on only a few pages. The edit filter should log the edits, not warn the anon in any way, because this would be easy for the anon to avoid just by changing the edit summary they use. If Schwede66 and I can view the log for this filter every day or so, we can reverse any such edits and the anon will not know how we are tracking them.- gadfium 00:39, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I might be the editor referred to here. I would question the explanation above by Schwede66 of what is happening. In NZ it has become increasingly common to use actual Maori words (including Maori spelling and pronunciation) rather than the anglised and often already assimilated English versions of those Maori words (where spelling and pronunciation has changed accordingly). This approach in NZ is driven by legislation that forces the use of Maori words rather than the anglised English words and by an increasing social trend willingly to promote Maori related issues. This situation does not necessarily apply outside New Zealand where the anglised version of Maori words is usually used, not the Maori word in Maori. This makes it inappropriate to say that the way these words are used in NZ automatically applies outside NZ. The edit tag 'common English usage' applies to articles not closely associated with NZ where the use of NZ English may be inappropriate. The issue is not about whether macrons should be used, it is about whether the English word should be used or the Maori word. Failure to grasp that distinction by some has led to much fruitless discussion and unjustified negative finger pointing. I would therefore oppose this current request because it is grounded on an unintentional misunderstanding of the problem it is trying to solve. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 01:14, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry,, are you saying that you log out to suppress macrons?  Schwede 66  02:13, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I almost never edit anonymously and certainly never to hide from being 'detected'. I have occasionally/rarely removed a macron from a non-NZ site where I thought it inappropriate as explained above but not in an orchestrated way. I did sometimes remove macrons from NZ sites but less so in the last couple of years and never without an explained reason. If that reason is never understood, as suggested explained above, my motives will be questioned, as they usually are. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 03:40, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * If that's the case, this isn't about you. This is about an IP editor who utilises IP hopping and who edits geography items in contravention of the RfC consensus referred to above.  Schwede 66  03:55, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks and sorry if I jumped to conclusions: the whole wider macron issue is a touchy subject. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 06:03, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Here is a list of unreverted IP edits to NZ articles with edit summaries mentioning both English and spelling. I've run it for 2021–22.  There are a lot of false positives but it should still be useful.  Certes (talk) 19:23, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you Certes, that's perfect. I've gone through that report. There are only a few false positives, and several where the edits have already been reversed, but also a few where the anon is probably correct that macrons have been used too eagerly. I've restored the spellings in the remainder. I have since run a modified version (to establish that I understand how to do so - I haven't written SQL for nearly 20 years) modifying the dates to start at the beginning of November 2022, so I think we're set from this point on.- gadfium 23:51, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * That looks perfect. You could set up a regular Database report to run every day/week/month and pop up on your watchlist: see User:Certes/Reports for examples.  You may want to replace the   condition.  I experimented with date ranges and lazily set the end date to 1 Jan 2023, but something like   will list changes from a month ago with no end date. Certes (talk) 11:35, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Pages related to Crunchyroll and Funimation
200.88.59.111 (talk) 03:30, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Task: IPs 76.68.77.79, 174.95.137.59 and user Imperial meter have repeatedly tried to combine all page history, even renamed Funimation to Crunchyroll as the same companies in a confusing way.
 * Reason: Some administrator could be in charge of eliminating numerous editions, summaries and comments in the articles of Crunchyroll and Funimation, it has not stopped making disorders between the two since speculation began that Funimation, for example, operates under the umbrella of Crunchyroll which was acquired by Sony (its owner) in 2021 and also eliminate unnecessary redirects (from streaming service to company).
 * Diffs: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26


 * This is not a place for settling a content dispute. Consider reading WP:Dispute resolution instead. <span style="font-family:Iosevka,monospace">0x Deadbeef →∞ (talk to me) 04:37, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Tagging non-admins who accept/decline unblock requests
— k6ka  <span title="Canadian!" style="color:red">🍁 ( Talk ·  Contributions ) 18:13, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Task: Logs (and if stable, tags or even disallows, users who are not administrators from changing unblock to unblock reviewed or unblock on hold.
 * Reason: We had some LTAs recently who declined legitimate unblock requests, such as Mikuiou, Mikuieu, Spaocew, and ScotchFishinWhammie30. Of course, it's entirely possible that we might be having other non-admin users who are inappropriately "handling" unblock requests when they're not supposed to. It would be useful if we had a filter that could catch these edits so users who are filing a legitimate unblock request won't fall through the cracks because a vandal "declined" their unblock.
 * Diffs: See contributions links above.
 * What does "LTA" stand for? Herostratus (talk) 01:03, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @Herostratus, it means WP:Long-term abuser. casualdejekyll  01:21, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * K, thx. Herostratus (talk) 08:02, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Whenever I see a cryptic abbreviation that only the regulars understand, I type WP:+initialism into the search box, e.g. WP:LTA, and am usually enlightened. Certes (talk) 14:16, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @K6ka First attempt is now logging at Special:AbuseFilter/1235. Sam Walton (talk) 10:40, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it would be better if it catches both captitalizations: [uU]nblock. Also see <span style="font-family:Iosevka,monospace">0x Deadbeef  →∞ (talk to me) 11:55, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * On a separate thought, I think we might be able to catch all cases by detecting removal of the template instead. @Samwalton9: Thoughts? <span style="font-family:Iosevka,monospace">0x Deadbeef →∞ (talk to me) 13:27, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @0xDeadbeef Capitalisation is a great point, added. How would you see the removal option working? Sam Walton (talk) 13:52, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * If a non-sysop removes unblock, then it would hit this. we could let extended confirmed editors bypass this if people need to remove unblock requests that only contain vandalism. <span style="font-family:Iosevka,monospace">0x Deadbeef →∞ (talk to me) 14:06, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I was under the impression that, even if an unblock request was just vandalism, it is best to leave it in place anyway, so the admin can clearly see that the template is being used abusively and revoke TPA accordingly. Unless it is to remove oversightable stuff, non-admins should never modify an unblock request. Even then, they should leave the template itself alone, and only modify the parts that need to have oversightable material removed.
 * TLDR version: As I understand, there is absolutely no reson for a non-admin to change an unblock request to "reviewed" or "review on hold", declined or whatever. Mako001 (C) (T)  🇺🇦 06:47, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * See Special:AbuseFilter/history/1235/diff/prev/28246. Some good ideas, but there's a good chance the LTA doing this (it's only one LTA AFAIK) is reading this discussion right now. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:44, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @Suffusion of Yellow You're right - disabled 1235. Sam Walton (talk) 21:22, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reminder. <span style="font-family:Iosevka,monospace">0x Deadbeef →∞ (talk to me) 01:14, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I wasn't initially aware of that filter, thanks for pointing it out. — k6ka  <span title="Canadian!" style="color:red">🍁 ( Talk ·  Contributions ) 01:18, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

/* Notable alumni */ added Kenny King Jr, sports writer and digital content creator
Loopygru (talk) 09:12, 2 January 2023 (UTC) Requesting to Add Kenny King Jr to the Las Lomas High School notable alumni. King is a Sports Writer for Vegas Sports Daily as well as a prominent podcaster on the Blue Wire Network.
 * 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.


 * @Loopygru This noticeboard is only for requesting new filters. If you think someone is notable for inclusion, you need a source. See our notability guideline. 137a (talk) 13:16, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I think we can archive this now. archive now 137a (talk) 13:40, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Modification to common vandal summaries filter
Mako001 (C) (T)  🇺🇦 06:51, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Task: Prevent the use of "nothing" as an edit summary.
 * Reason: This is a common vandal summary, and is (at best) an entirely useless edit summary, and at worst, used to (invariably unsuccessfully) attempt to get around RC patrollers.
 * Diffs:


 * above user tripped filter ("Commmon vandal summaries", log-only, maybe a test filter). 137a (talk) 15:31, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Hopefully, an EFM will come here soon 137a (talk) 13:12, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

bad words to test
first word here, as well as "/blo+ser/b" should be tested in. These are somewhat common insults that you won't find in many constructive edits 137a (talk) 15:29, 12 December 2022 (UTC)


 * 8,640 articles contain the word "loser" in lower case, and none of the sample I checked look like vandalism. I suspect there will be too many false positives. Certes (talk) 15:40, 12 December 2022 (UTC)


 * how about this word here? 137a (talk) 17:09, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Lots of words there! I'm struggling to guess whether get a bran loosers your so stuped is insult or parody, but ClueBot spotted and reverted it as expected. Certes (talk) 18:24, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

"trann(y|ie)", "libtard": rarely seen in legitimate edits from new users; pretty common insults. "far[- ]left": too often used in POV-pushing or personal attacks. This is what I suggest be tested. 137a (talk) 13:58, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * "libtard" is a reasonable one; far-left clearly has multiple good uses. Black Kite (talk) 14:10, 13 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Pictogram voting wait.svg see if an EFM will decide. 137a (talk) 13:12, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Goofy ahh
◇  Helen   Degenerate  ◆ 21:50, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Task: Can we put the phrase 'goofy ahh' in a test filter and see if it's worthy of addition to Filter 614?
 * Reason: 'Goofy ahh' is Internet slang for 'goofy ass' and I've seen it used a lot lately. None of the additions have been constructive.
 * Diffs: Special:Diff/1127464826, Special:Diff/1126899694


 * Pictogram voting wait.svg 137a (talk) 13:12, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

ahmed@farouk disruption
 Sunil Nevla Fan ✨ 17:18, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Task: Disallow IPs from making edits to talk pages that consist of "ahmed@farouk."
 * Reason: Prevent nonconstructive talk page editing, saving people who patrol talk pages (like me) time.
 * Diffs: Talk:Taylor Swift, Talk:Britney Spears, Talk:Ariana Grande, and

Benjamin Dherbecourt
Binksternet (talk) 04:56, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Task: We need a filter to prevent the name "Benjamin Dherbecourt" from being added to music articles as a producer or writer. Sometimes just the surname Dherbecourt is added.
 * Reason: The disruption started with User:Hunco45 in 2014, then started coming from IPs in France, and is targeting multiple music articles.
 * Diffs: The first instances of this disruption involved User:Hunco45 in 2014, who stopped contributing after several warnings. After that, the IPs involved include Special:Contributions/176.153.21.91 just recently, and the range Special:Contributions/2A01:E34:ECE6:5DD0:0:0:0:0/64 back in 2018. Typical activity includes adding the name Benjamin Dherbecourt to music by Selena Gomez, and more rarely by other pop artists. This kind of disruption is too hard to prevent without a filter.

Illegitimate unblock request handling
--jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106;&#x1D110;&#x1d107; 19:04, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Task: Prevent new users from (fraudulently) reviewing unblock requests. Reject modification of "unblock" to "unblock reviewed".
 * Reason: Someone has decided it's fun to make bogus unblock reviews.
 * Diffs: All these contributions, as just one set of examples from one person: Special:Contributions/Garbil123, Special:Contributions/Dunny1127, Special:Contributions/Blaine1018


 * What do you think the user requirements should be? That is, do you envision a case where a user in good standing, but not an admin, would legitimately need to mark an unblock request as reviewed? -- <b style="color:red">King of ♥</b><b style="color:red"> ♦</b><b style="color:black"> ♣</b><b style="color:black"> ♠</b> 19:34, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I've wondered a bit about that myself. I'd think at the very least, non-confirmed users really have no business messing with that stuff. There's no policy that I know of restricting regular users from reviewing and declining unblock requests. I haven't seen it happening much, if at all. And I can't think of any strong reason to prevent regular users from helping out by rejecting clearly nonsense or malicious requests -- though I think it's better just to revert such requests, and often do so. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106;&#x1D110;&#x1d107; 20:06, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * after further review. Emailing you with details. -- <b style="color:red">King of ♥</b><b style="color:red"> ♦</b><b style="color:black"> ♣</b><b style="color:black"> ♠</b> 00:27, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm seeing this a whole lot, eg. Special:Contributions/Celltiwosin, Special:Contributions/Mistral128 in the last hour - I see several of them every day in the abuse log, there have to have been like 15+ instances by now. (The relevant filter is 1221, currently it doesn't disallow the edit.) And it's been happening for a week or more. So I would very strongly recommend upgrading the filter to disallow.
 * I think the fallout from stopping very new accounts from reviewing unblock requests is minimal. How often would they even have the policy knowledge to do so properly?  19:01, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Speak of the devil, Special:Contributions/Meirtuios appeared two minutes ago.  19:02, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:DENY. We don't talk about... --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106;&#x1D110;&#x1d107; --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106;&#x1D110;&#x1d107; 19:10, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Disregarding 1221 and any possible checks specific to the target it may perform, I consider a public filter to disallow reviewing non-sysops from reviewing unblocks with a nice explainer message as useful, and don't see why it shouldn't exist. Perhaps for another discussion though. DatGuyTalkContribs 19:19, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I wonder if we're worrying about something non-existent. When would a non-admin have a legitimate reason to process an unblock request? If it's vandalism, just revert the vandalism. Otherwise, wait for one of the admins who hang around CAT:RFU to deal with it. I do think it's time to turn on disallow 1221 right now, though. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106;&#x1D110;&#x1d107; 20:00, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Pinging to comment. -- <b style="color:red">King of ♥</b><b style="color:red"> ♦</b><b style="color:black"> ♣</b><b style="color:black"> ♠</b> 01:33, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm certainly not giving technical details here, but here are a few situations this filter must deal with:
 * An outright abusive request should be removable by any user. There may be responded requests on the page.
 * If a page with a responded unblock request is blanked by a third party, anyone should be allowed to revert.
 * The template can be invoked by a number of methods (such as upper vs. lower first lettee).
 * Animal lover &#124;666&#124; 17:09, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Case 2 is the only one of particular technical concern. I'm not sure how we'd recognize that was happening, but I don't know the depth (or lack thereof) of information filters are privy to. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106;&#x1D110;&#x1d107; 17:51, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That specific case can be differentiated using available variables see mw:Extension:AbuseFilter/Rules format, don't want to get into details on-wiki for obvious reasons and there's an experienced team here that will get it done more neatly than I would anyway. But otherwise my thoughts tend to align with those of Firefly below. If you do go through with this it's probably safer to use an edit count high enough that it's unlikely to be gamed rather than disallowing all non-sysops. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 19:23, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I came up with several other methods to use the template without tripping an edit filter, and sent it to the edit filter email list. Animal lover &#124;666&#124; 18:36, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure setting 1221 to disallow is the best idea, as the user(s) will simply evade it and find new an interesting ways to make mischief I fear. I don't hold this view very strongly however, so won't stand in the way if we want to try it out. firefly  ( t · c ) 18:13, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * This seems to all be the work of a single person. Given what we know about this LTA, I don't see this being productive. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 18:26, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, they are impersonating an administrator to tell blocked users to create new accounts. This might be a serious enough issue that it is worth preventing even if they do merely find something else to do. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 18:33, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * They may find a new way, but at least it won't be sending emails to blocked users about their unblock request. They're clearly not trying to evade scrutiny, so I don't think that's going to be an issue. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:06, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I've been on the fence about setting this to disallow. My main concern was that their new M.O. might not be logged by any filter, so they'll disappear off the radar for a while. At a minimum, keep a close eye on . If they're finding a new way to troll or harass users, it will probably show up there. The email issue hadn't occurred to me until now; I now lean towards flipping the switch. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:34, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Concur with Suffusion - leaning to disallow now. firefly  ( t · c ) 18:08, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * This form of abuse did strike me as particularly problematic given many of the users requesting unblock only have a fuzzy grasp of what is acceptable here, and so are susceptible to being misled.  03:34, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * This came up here not very long ago. I'll say again what I said then: Non-admins, regardless of experience, should not be reviewing unblock requests, period. Admins need to see unblock requests, even obvious "decline" ones, to judge whether or not they should revoke TPA or not. Prohibiting anyone but admins from reviewing unblock requests seems most definitely reasonable. If a non-admin has any comment on an unblock request which they feel will be relevant to the reviewing admin, or has guidance for the blocked user, they can add it below the unblock request. Mako001 (C) (T)  🇺🇦 04:45, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure. But that's a policy thing, not a filtery thing. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106;&#x1D110;&#x1d107; 06:56, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @Jpgordon: Isn't that policy already? WP:UNBLOCK specifically mentions administrators as being responsible for reviewing unblock requests. Mako001 (C) (T)  🇺🇦 14:12, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * This policy question has already been discussed at the appropriate venue. However, there are other reasons that it's unwise to set this filter to disallow anyone who's not in the sysop user group. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 14:26, 8 February 2023 (UTC)