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 1388 — Actions: none; Flags: disabled; Pattern modified

Last changed at 12:20, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Filter 1412 (new) — Actions: tag; Flags: enabled,public; Pattern modified

Last changed at 12:20, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Filter 1384 — Actions: showcaptcha; Flags: enabled

Last changed at 22:39, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Filter 1411 (new) — Actions: showcaptcha; Flags: enabled,private; Pattern modified

Last changed at 21:23, 11 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 372 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

Disable filter 960

This should be redundant since MediaWiki automatically tags these edits now. * Pppery * _{in solidarity} 17:34, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Disabled. The new tags are 'Edited other user's JS' and 'Edited other user's CSS', seemingly from around 7 May 2026. Courtesy ping for Xaosflux who created the filter. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 06:16, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Not sure a tag is as robust as a log here - but also I don't think this one is being used much for actual review so likely fine. — xaosflux ^Talk 10:07, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Use of edit filters for LTA ranges

I've noticed this discussed briefly on WP:EFFPR, but to echo User:Taking Out The Trash, why are we using edit filters to disallow edits based on IP ranges? It seems we're getting a lot of false positives, and how does this benefit over using range blocks? Lordseriouspig 08:08, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Courtesy ping: Ohnoitsjamie Lordseriouspig 08:09, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

@Lordseriouspig: It's not wise to comment in public on private filters (for WP:NEEDTOKNOW reasons). EggRoll97 ^(talk) 17:40, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Well we're not discussing a specific filter... this is more of a question about principle and procedure. Why are we using edit filters to outright disallow edits solely based on IP ranges in the first place? That's what a range block is for. Hard-block if necessary. Filters should be used for, y'know, filtering actual unwanted content. Basically filters should be checking against what's in the edit, not who is making the edit or where the edit is originating from. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 13:41, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

@Taking Out The Trash: IP blocks are fairly blunt instruments, even when only partial blocks are applied. Edit filters allow us a little more leeway to target bad faith behavior. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 19:23, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Based on some of the comments seen at WP:EFFPR by EFMs, I think the filter only targets specific topics or pages from editing on IP ranges that have been used by LTAs, not all pages. --Prothe1st (leave me a message)-- 12:50, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

LTA 1365 filter

I saw that this filter was disallowing this user's edit to WP:EFFPR. I looked at Special:AbuseLog/44722676 and it doesn't look like there was anything wrong with their edit. Maybe a change to the filter needs to be made so that WP:EFFPR is exempt from this filter. --Prothe1st (leave me a message)-- 13:56, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

 Done EggRoll97 ^(talk) 02:54, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

mark edits as reverted

Hi, is there a way to manually mark hits as either reverted or fine (possibly saying who marked it)? This'd be really useful for filters related to cleanup, atm you end up duplicating the work by checking ones someone's already dealt with, and guessing which ones they've already done is a pain. Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 19:32, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Per Special:ListGroupRights, only edit filter managers, bots and administrators can apply and remove tags from edits and log entries, and even then it probably applies only to tags applied manually by users and bots. Codename Noreste (talk • contribs) 20:23, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Abuse filters only affect edits as they are made. Most reverted edits are tagged as being reverted by MediaWiki itself, but that code can't detect 100% of reverts. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 23:39, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

yeah, I was thinking of something like 2 little checkboxes by each log entry for people monitoring the filter, one for "dealt with" one for "it's fine", but just one checkbox would probably work better. Idk if there'd be a way to make only that checkbox editable for people without those rights? Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 23:58, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Maybe someone could file a phab ticket to create something like this? – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 00:10, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

It sounds more like you're talking about a "reviewed" attribute which would probably want to be broader than just filter log items (i.e., if someone is going through the effort to implement it, presumably you would also want to include edits and some actions). I'd suggest reviewing Phabricator to see if a feature request like this already exists. It also might be an interesting idea to discuss with some anti-vandalism tool maintainers. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 00:31, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks all, I've made a wish and a phab report Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 16:51, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

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)