MyWiki:Edit filter/Requested

{{Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested/Header}} User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis

Disallow removing declined unblock requests

Per WP:KEEPDECLINEDUNBLOCK. Draft code:

user_blocked &
("{{unblock reviewed" in removed_lines) &
! ("{{unblock reviewed" in added_lines)

* Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:50, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

• Comment Edge case: it is only disallowed to remove declined unblock requests for a current block. What if the user, although blocked now, is removing the ones from a previous block? Black Kite (talk) 16:06, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

  user_blocked should fix that issue. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 01:27, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

  Testing at 1389 – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 01:36, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

  I would probably recommend that we place user_blocked at the bottom of the filter, since it might be slow in performance. Codename Noreste (discuss • contribs) 01:39, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

  mw:Extension:AbuseFilter/Rules format never specifies that user_blocked is slow in performance. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 01:42, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

  user_blocked is a lazy-loaded variable and might perform a database query to get the block status (User::getBlock()). Of course, added_lines and removed_lines are also lazy-loaded vars, and the substring search might not be any faster than the database query. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 01:51, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

  Also at some point in the process of making an edit it already checks whether the user is blocked for obvious reasons. It's possible the database query from that is cached. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:47, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

  What about accepted unblock requests? ~2025-36274-70 (talk) 21:41, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

  user_blocked should be false once the unblock is accepted, so this isn't much of an issue. (Unless of course the user gets blocked again and tries to remove their earlier accepted unblock request) Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 21:43, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

  user_blocked doesn't solve the problem the Black Kite brought up. This situation is:

  1. Block #1
  2. Appeal #1 (declined)
  3. Block #1 expires
  4. Block #2
  5. Appeal #2 (declined)

  user_blocked is true, but they're well within their rights to remove appeal #1.

  Also, I think there are some IAR exceptions that no filter can account for. Say the user was editing under their real name, it's been years, they have no intention of editing ever again, but just want to do quietly do away with that page where they're called "incompetent" (or worse) by multiple people? Are we really going to make them carry the badge of shame forever, because rules?

  No objection to a tagging filter, though, if it helps reviewing admins find removed requests. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:03, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

  Yeah, I think you are right and that this filter will probably never be set to disallow, but a tagging or logging-only filter may be useful. It's also worth noting that all hits so far have been true positives. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 01:22, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

• We should use lcase(added_lines) if we use in or contains, but I am also suggesting changes to the filter:

  page_namespace == 3 &
  page_title == user_name &
  !("bot" in user_groups) &
  lcase(removed_lines) contains "{{unblock reviewed" &
  !(lcase(added_lines) contains "{{unblock reviewed" &
  user_blocked == true

  I also added page_title == user_name because without it, it would not only prevent the user from removing a declined unblock request From their talk page, but from others' user talk pages as well. Codename Noreste (discuss • contribs) 20:03, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

  In the vast majority of cases, the user will be unable to edit other talk pages, but I guess in the case of partial blocks, having a check that they are editing their own talk page would be useful. And I doubt that bots should be exempted from this rule also (why would they be removing declined unblock requests off their talk page if they are blocked?) I've also added lcase to the filter as you suggested though. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 20:13, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

  FWIW, you don't need to add a check for == true since it does that automatically. Likewise user_blocked == false would be !user_blocked. Aydoh8^{[what have I done now?]} 04:51, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Add 6-7 to EF 614

• Task: Add the phrase 6-7 (see 6-7 (meme)) to edit filter 614.
• Reason: It is an increasingly common input for vandals to add on articles.

Kline • talk • contribs 02:14, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm concerned about potential false positives that could occur if we add this to 614 (like in dates in references). I've heard of this meme before, but for a more accurate filter design, could you please share some examples of diffs using this phrase? Thanks – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 06:01, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Let me see if I can drum some up from my reverts. Might be a bit. Kline • talk • contribs 13:22, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

1 and 2 is all I have right now, will patrol some more and see if I can drop some more diffs. Kline • talk • contribs 13:52, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Google search / Google AI overviews

• Task: The filter should prevent additions of links to Google Search/Google AI overviews on articles only
• Reason: People link to Google Search by mistake, or to Google AI overviews
• Diffs: Example of someone linking to an Google AI overview - Searching for insource:"https://www.google.com/search?q=" (2188 results)

Sent here by zzuuzz.

Polygnotus (talk) 12:29, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Publifye 3

See previous thread, where EggRoll97 deferred me to RSN. At the RSN discussion, there seems to be consensus for somehow blocking Publifye references; Newslinger has suggested a new edit filter. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 16:54, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

@Kovcszaln6: Testing at 1393. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 18:06, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Filter edits mentioning "Minus33"

• Task: Globally filter out mentions of the brand Minus33 due to persistent WP:PROMO/WP:NOTHERE
• Reason: The non-notable (per three speedy deletes, an AfD, and a declined AfC) company Minus33 keeps trying to get an article about themselves on Wikipedia, most recently with a declared COI editor Highland00835 trying to go through an article about the parent company L.W. Packard, which was just actually an article about Minus33 (notice they even used a now-deleted Minus33 logo image as the L.W. Packard logo). Other SPA COI accounts include Csexton3552, Csexton25, Lawdog87, CurrierField, Joel4832, Snowboardernh, and L.W. Packard.
• Diffs: diff, notice they even tried using a non-free Minus33 logo they uploaded with the wrong rights for this

diff of deletion history for Minus33. List of sock manufacturers (I'm not accusing the editor who added this, to be clear)

There's no reason this company should be mentioned on Wikipedia unless something changes and their persistence makes it challenging to know where they'll try next.

~2025-34825-61 (talk) 10:40, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Looks like there's another type of sock being manufactured here! Somepinkdude (talk) 02:50, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Comment This request is forum shopping as part of an attempt to prevent Draft: L.W. Packard, the 109 year-old parent company of Minus33, from getting a fair review at AfC. AfC is the primary forum where discussions are already taking place about descriptions of Minus33, as a small part of the proposed page about LW Packard. There have been extensive discussions at Draft talk:L.W. Packard about whether and how to include Minus33 in a page about LW Packard and discussions should remain there, not here.

A page about Packard has been proposed just once so far. A new draft of LW Packard will be submitted again and the extent to which Minus33 should be included should be discussed in that context and/or the context of a page about Packard on the main space if it is approved. I have a WP:COI as a consultant for WhiteHatWiki which has been hired by Minus33, a division of Packard. An employee of Minus33, User:Highland00835, recently submitted the AfC draft for L.W. Packard, but given a barrage of forum shopping and disruptive editing by User:~2025-34825-61 and at least one possible sock of this account: User:~2025-32994-24, I was asked to respond here.

First please note that this complaining user recently said at AfC that L.W. Packard likely meets notability guidelines. [1]. They even inserted material about Minus33 into the AfC draft for L.W. Packard. [2] Indeed, it would be extremely incomplete, or impossible, to write a page about the 109 year-old Packard without describing its remaining subsidiary, Minus33. Minus33 need not be notable to be an important part of the LW Packard page. By asking that Minus33 be filtered, this editor is using this Noticeboard to try to do an end run around a page about LW Packard possibly being approved or what content should be on that page. An AfC draft (heavily edited by:~2025-32994-24 and ~2025-34825-61) for L.W. Packard has only been submitted one time and filtering the ability to mention Minus33 would almost have the effect of salting LW Packard. Other examples of forum shopping on this same question by include:

• ~2025-34825-61 reported Highland00835 to COI/N Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Minus33 employee attempting to get their article again at Draft: L.W. Packard. Highland00835 had properly disclosed their COI as an employee of Minus33 when they submitted the Draft: L.W. Packard for review in October, 2025. Packard is a 109 year-old company of which Minus33 is the major subsidiary. Requests to take action against the draft and Highland00835 were declined and this editor was told Highland00835 had properly followed COI disclosure policy.
• This editor applied for page protection for LW Packard and Minus33 [3] and this was declined.
• As noted, this editor extensively participated in the recent submission in the AfC draft about Packard, including rewriting the draft by Highland and many Talk page posts and an AfC Comment. (It is worth noting ~2025-34825-61 removed sources that established notability, adding unreliable sources, and inserted original research, making the page much less likely to be approved,
• This editor deleted two AfC Comments on the draft from Highland explaining what their draft had been rewritten and asking their draft be considered rather than this editor’s version. (The removal of the AfC comments, with a link to the more fully sourced draft, made it more difficult for other editors to consider the notability of the company. The draft that Highland00835 asked be considered for the mainspace is here [4] but an AfC reviewer who declined the initial draft likely never even saw this.)
• This editor is falsely claiming that the draft about Packard is “actually an article about Minus33”. Whether you look at the draft Highland00835 asked to be considered here [5] or even the draft rewritten by this editor, most of the draft is about the 109-year old company. It includes its surviving active subsidiary, of course, but that’s not the focus of this page, as this editor knows.

I will address the disruptive editing in the proper forum, but I wanted to place this request for filtering in the proper context. I cannot speak to what editors did before:Highland00835. But Highland and I are both acting in accordance with all relevant COI policies. Brucemyboy1212 (talk) 18:05, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

"Selami" vandalism filter

Recently, LTAs have been vandalising pages with the word "selami", which may or may not be related to this incident. Special:Diff/1326185330 is an example of this behaviour. It would be useful to change part of an existing "disallow" filter to stop new users from adding this into articles that do not already contain the word. Somepinkdude (talk) 16:28, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Filter for "oaicite"

• Task: Tag and/or warn users who insert :contentReference[oaicite:x] (where x is a number) or simply "oaicite" or something along those lines.
• Reason: It's a common ChatGPT error, and if someone is trying to publish it it means the text is very likely unreviewed LLM-generated content. This goes against the new WP:NEWLLM and pages including that are usually tagged as G15, and I have tagged my fair share of these.

HurricaneZeta^C 22:15, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Redundant We already have 1346 (hist · log) that tags edits that insert "oaicite". – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 22:40, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Renaming a person

• Task: Catch changes to the "name" field in a "person" infobox
• Reason: People's names don't change very often.
• Diffs: [6]

Maybe something like: If the user is not autoconfirmed, and there are between 2-3 parts in the name, and 2 parts of the name are changed, tag as possible vandalism? Also, the "birth_name" field should very rarely be changed.

This is similar to 391. 『π』BalaM314〘talk〙 00:36, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Disallow legal threats outside article space

I propose a filter that disallows phrases like "I will sue" or other legal threats outside article space, as outside the article space, these phrases barely have constructive uses, except on noticeboards where legal threats are reported, such as WP:ANI or WP:AIV. I doubt that this filter would get many hits, but if something trips this filter, it is likely vandalism or serious legal threats. I do know an example of this, where a now blocked user created their userpage with the text "i will sue wikipedia for 1 million dollars" or something similar. There are also numerous other examples of legal threats. You just need to go to the archives of WP:ANI to see such legal threats being reported there. RaschenTechner (talk) 16:24, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

I think WP:DOLT applies here. Sometimes the legal threat will draw attention to a serious BLP violation. It should not disappear into the filter log. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:21, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Filter 869

Special:AbuseFilter/869 caught an Urban Dictionary link (log entry), even though it is not listed as deprecated at WP:RSP. I discovered this while investigating a failure of Lowercase sigmabot III (talk · contribs · logs · filter log · block log) to archive a talk page that contains it. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:28, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

POV Russia/Ukraine edits

Can we have a filter to detect someone replacing multiple occurences of "Russia", "Russians", "Russian", and the like with "Ukraine", "Ukrainians", etc., or the other way around? An example is Special:Diff/1327162552, but as an anti-vandalism patroller I have seen countless others. I also wonder if there could be a general contentious replacement filter to avoid "Israel" and "Palestine" replacements on pages that are not related closely enough to the Israel-Palestine topic to have the contentious topic restriction (for example, a BLP who was born in Israel/Palestine, or a corporation headquartered there). I don't think this would work as a disallow filter, as reverting the edits is also changing nationalities, but it would be useful as a tag/warn. Somepinkdude (talk) 17:43, 20 December 2025 (UTC)