Hi, i would like to get the word "object show" unblacklisted because this word has been unknownly blacklisted with "bfb", "bfdi", "battle for dream island", cary, micheal and others. I was trying to create my user pageThreeobjectshow! (talk)18:27, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And we're not going to risk harm to the encyclopedia so that we can accommodate your choice of username. Pick another. —Cryptic19:05, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have a solution! Perhaps anadministrator/page mover/template editor can create your user page (maybe even your user talk page) for you, @Threeobjectshow! They can maybe create a completely blank page, which you then may fill with (almost) anything you want! You should ask someone to create it for you. This would make everyone happy. You would get your user page, and Wikipedia would not get spammed with BFDI stuff. This is simply my suggestion to you, @Threeobjectshow!Crocusfleur (talk)16:52, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't work in the medium- or long-term - it would need admin(/pm/te) intervention for every page in that userspace, and in particular for talk page archives. —Cryptic09:37, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thisedit request has been answered. Set the|answered= parameter tono to reactivate your request.
Please add the phrase "kill all" to the blacklist, as this could be used to create attack pages with "kill all (insert ethnic, religious, demographic, or other group here)" in its title.RaschenTechner (talk)17:29, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi@JJMC89: I'm a little confused about the addition ofUser( talk)?:.+\/$, labeled as# Bad user subpages (ending in /).[1] As a template editor, I'm actually not affected by that, but as a common editor I always found that ending very handy when testing templates and subtemplates in userspace. For example, when testingUser:Est. 2021/Template/Example, I used to simply name the subtemplateUser:Est. 2021/Template/Example/ and invoke it via{{/|parameter}}, instead of writing-out or copy-pasting countless times the longer forms{{/subtemplate|parameter}} and{{User:Est. 2021/Template/Example/subtemplate|parameter}} at every occurrence. I mean, you can test hundreds of{{/|parameter}} in a row in few seconds, while writing-out or copy-pasting the longer form at every row definitely slows down things a lot, and I don't see any positive side, nor any self-explanatory need for that. Is there any? Thanks in advance. — Est. 2021 (talk·contribs)19:48, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am inclined to remove this (and add a narrower rule specifically targeting ClueBot III badly subnested archives) unless JJMC89 provides a good explanation for the purpose of this rule. I personally think creating subpages without a name is dumb, but the purpose of the blacklist isn't to keep people from doing things I think are dumb in their userspace - if you think otherwise then more power to you. JJMC89 hasn't edited since Cryptic poked this thread on his talk page; I'll give him a chance to respond first.* Pppery *it has begun...01:46, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
<antispoof> already matches the \x{characters}, see #2.
−
.*ale(x|kse[ijy]|xe[iy]).*?pech?k?uro[uv].*
+
.*ale(x|kse[ijy]).*?pech?k?uro[uv].*
|xe[iy]) is never matched as(x| will always be lazy matched first. If this pattern used[uvw] like #3 above instead of[uv] thenh? could be removed from this pattern as #3 would trigger regardless.
−
.*pech?k?uro[uv].*?ale(x|kse[ijy]|xe[iy]).*
+
.*pech?k?uro[uv].*?ale(x|kse[ijy]).*
Same as #4 above.
−
.*ale(x|kse[ijy]|xe[iy]).*?bugatti.*
+
.*ale(x|kse[ijy]).*?bugatti.*
|xe[iy] removed for the same reason as #4 and #5.
−
.*((sachin.*?tomar)|(tomar.*?sachin)).*
+
.*(sachin.*?tomar|tomar.*?sachin).*
Unnecessary groups.
−
.*[Jj]ohn.*[Gg]alea.*
+
.*john.*galea.*
Unnecessary character classes, matching is case-insensitive.
.*((.ilesh)|(.rabhat)).*(.aurya).* and.*((.ilesh)|(.rabhat)).*(.ricket).* can be combined and simplified into.+(ilesh|rabhat).+(aurya|ricket).* which will match exactly the same as the other two patterns.
−
.*(JaySilver).*((Music)|(music)|(Artist)).*
+
.*jaysilver.*(music|artist).*
Unnecessary groups, matching is case-insensitive. Intention of the original pattern is unclear, if the parenthesis around[Mm]usic andArtist were intended to be literal then.*jay silver.*\((music|artist)\).* is correct.
Category:M[o0]+[Ww][o0]+\d* andCategory:W[o0]+[Mm][o0]+\d* can be combined and simplified intoCategory:(m[o0]+w|w[o0]+m)[o0]+\d* since matching is case-insensitive.
I'm slightly confused then,m:Extension:TitleBlacklist says that antispoof normalizes titles before matching, and the equivset antispoof useshere has all the characters in the above suggested changes as equivalent to the accompanying latin text. Using.*l[o\x{043E}]v[i\x{0456}]f[m\x{043C}].* for example: Line 41here contains both U+006F "o - Latin Small Letter O" and U+043E "о - Cyrillic Small Letter O", line 35 both U+0069 "i" and U+0456 "і", and line 39 "m" and U+043C "м".
"antоny gordon (using the +436 character) is not blacklisted" – I'd expect it wouldn't be since U+0436 "ж" doesn't match any of those latin letters in equivset, but I'd expect that "αɳｔ0ռӯ ｇɵᴙðσՈ" would be, since all those characters are listed as equivalent.
Sorry, I meant 43E, not 436 (which you could have confirmed from the actual link I used).αɳｔ0ռӯ ｇɵᴙðσՈ triggers a completely different blacklist rule higher up on the list ("Fullwidth Latin letters"), which makes it impossible for me to determine whether it triggers the lower rule because rules are evaluated top to bottom. If I try to munge that as little as possible to avoid other rules, I getTalk:Αɳt0ռӯ gɵᴙðσՈ, which isn't blacklisted - indeed evenαntony gordon isn't blacklisted, And I do have a local MediaWiki instance set up, but I didn't rely on it here; I actually made the changes, observed they caused things to be unblacklisted that shouldn't have been, and self-reverted; I'm just as confused as you are; maybe file a bug on Phabricator.* Pppery *it has begun...03:55, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've now foundthis open issue on phabricator that seems to be the root of the problem (and it seems you've found it too).
For those following along: antispoof rejects mixed-alphabet strings and won't normalize them, but titleblacklist ignores this rejection.αntony gordon mixes greek and latin characters, so antispoof rejects it and titleblacklist ignores that rejection.Antony Gordön only contains latin characters, so antispoof doesn't reject it and normalizes it to "antony gordon" as expected.
I still think encouraging this kind of makework is a bad idea, and the above is kind of why. It's good and all that the accidentally-unlisted title is one of the ones you verified afterward; next time it may well not be. If there's am actual, functional change being proposed or ameasurably poorly-performing regex being remediated, by all means do it. But if all you're doing is reformatting so that the rule looks prettier, then it's not worth the risk or your time. —Cryptic09:46, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't feel like I wasted my time reviewing this request; it inspired me to submit a patch to fix a longstanding software bug relating to antispoof rules that I'm sure would have bitten someone else in the future instead.* Pppery *it has begun...15:45, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thisedit request has been answered. Set the|answered= parameter tono to reactivate your request.
Description of suggested changes:
Thirteen requests which reduce line count in a straightforward manner. Five additional potential makework and higher-risk requests have been listed in a separate section to address raised concerns.
Suggestions:
Reduce linecount
# INVERTED QUESTION MARK WITH NON-LATIN TEXT
.*¿.*[^\p{Latin}\P{L}].* .*[^\p{Latin}\P{L}].*¿.* can be replaced with: (?=.*¿).*[^\p{Latin}\P{L}].*
# EXCESSIVE PUNCTUATION OR REPETITION
.*‽‽.* <moveonly> .*¿¿.* <moveonly> are already matched by: .*[!?‽¿]{2}(?<!!!).* <moveonly>
.*chaos.{0,7}apper.* .*chaos.{0,7}usic.* .*chaos.{0,7}ntert.* .*chaos.{0,5}ashington.* .*chaos.{0,5}iscography.* .*chao\$.* can be replaced with: .*chao(\$|s.{0,7}(apper|usic|ntert)|s.{0,5}(ashington|iscography)).*
.*customer support (phone|number).* .*tech support (phone|number).* can be replaced with: .*(customer|tech) support (phone|number).*
.*on wh33ls.* .*on whiels.* .*on wiels.* can be replaced with: .*on w(h33|h?ie)ls.*
.*on rails.* <moveonly> .*on treads.* <moveonly> can be replaced with: .*on (rail|tread)s.* <moveonly>
.*[cċĉ¢сćĉçč][óòôöõǒōŏǫőøόδοσоʘǿọơờởỡớợồổỗốộ][cċĉ¢сćĉçč][kķкќқҝҡҟӄ].* .*[ċĉ¢сćĉçč][oóòôöõǒōŏǫőøόδοσоʘǿọơờởỡớợồổỗốộ][cċĉ¢сćĉçč][kķкќқҝҡҟӄ].* .*[cċĉ¢сćĉçč][oóòôöõǒōŏǫőøόδοσоʘǿọơờởỡớợồổỗốộ][ċĉ¢сćĉçč][kķкќқҝҡҟӄ].* .*[cċĉ¢сćĉçč][oóòôöõǒōŏǫőøόδοσоʘǿọơờởỡớợồổỗốộ][cċĉ¢сćĉçč][ķкќқҝҡҟӄ].* can be replaced with: .*[cċĉ¢сćĉçč][oóòôöõǒōŏǫőøόδοσоʘǿọơờởỡớợồổỗốộ][cċĉ¢сćĉçč][kķкќқҝҡҟӄ](?<!cock).*
.*giant penis.* .*huge penis.* can be replaced with: .*(giant|huge) penis.*
.*\bnimp\.org.* is already matched by.*nimp.org.*
# Prevent accidental creation of pages with some double namespace prefixes
User( talk)?:User( talk)?:.* User( talk)?:Template( talk)?:.* User( talk)?:Draft( talk)?:.* can be replaced with: User( talk)?:(User|Template|Draft)( talk)?:.*
Wikipedia( talk)?:User( talk)?:.* Wikipedia( talk)?:Wikipedia( talk)?:.* Wikipedia( talk)?:Help( talk)?:.* Wikipedia( talk)?:Draft( talk)?:.* can be replaced with: Wikipedia( talk)?:(User|Wikipedia|Help|Draft)( talk)?:.*
Template( talk)?:Template( talk)?:.* Template( talk)?:Portal( talk)?:.* can be replaced with: Template( talk)?:(Template|Portal)( talk)?:.*
Draft( talk)?:User( talk)?:.* Draft( talk)?:Category( talk)?:.* Draft( talk)?:Draft( talk)?:.* can be replaced with: Draft( talk)?:(User|Category|Draft)( talk)?:.*
Potential makework and higher-risk suggestions, feel free to ignore
−
.*[\p{Z}]{2}.*
+
.*\{p}Z{2}.*
Makework – Unnecessary character class.
−
.*Rap(e|es|ing) (babies|children|kids).*
+
.*Rap(es?|ing) (babies|children|kids).*
Makework – Less alternation.
−
.*[Gg]oogle[A-Za-z0-9]*\.html*
+
.*google[a-z0-9]*\.html*
Makework – Matching is case-insensitive. Is the ending* intentional or would a? or.* be more appropriate?
I have done a few of the straightforward changes. I haven't done: INVERTED QUESTION MARK WITH NON-LATIN TEXT, Chaos rules, cock rules, since I feel like rewriting several relatively straightforward cases into one using advanced regex features may not be worth it and I'm kind of coming around to Cryptic's position above there. I haven't done double namespace prefixes since I feel that listing the explicit namespaces disallowed each is clearer despite being longer. And finally the first "makework" change doesn't seem to make sense; you don't seem to realize what the/p modifier does (or maybe you made a typo)* Pppery *it has begun...15:58, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Typo.*\p{Z}{2}.* is the intended version, I had mused about suggesting.*\pZ{2}.* but decided to cut any cosmetic changes, must have re-added the brackets around the wrong character. Those are all the changes I'll be suggesting. Thank you.fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk)16:12, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thisedit request has been answered. Set the|answered= parameter tono to reactivate your request.
Description of suggested change: Hello. I can't create the page "Tɕʼ" because it's on the blacklist. Please remove it from the blacklist. I think the thing that is blacklisted is the symbol ɕ, and it's weird an IPA symbol and other symbols in the entry ".*[ℂ℃℄ɕƌʥℇ℈℉ℊℋℌℍℎℏℐ‼ℑℒℕ℗℘ℙℚℛℜℝ℞℟℣ℤℨ℩ℬℭ℮ℯℰℱℲℳℴℹ℺⅁⅂⅃⅄ⅅⅆⅇⅈⅉⅎ].* <casesensitive> # Select UnicodeLetterlike Symbols (excluding Kelvin, Angstrom and Ohm signs, see talk)" are on the blacklist.
@BodhiHarp Is there a reason why you can't just ask a administrator (like me to create the page for you?) I see this as a one-off exception and not a reason to remove the rule from the titleblacklist ?Sohom (talk)00:04, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thisedit request has been answered. Set the|answered= parameter tono to reactivate your request.
Add the words "Holocaust", "Nazi" and "Hitler" to the title blacklist. I'm surprised HoIocaust (a misspelling) is on the list but not the correctly spelled word. Make both caseinsensitive.
Yeah. There'salmost 9000 existing mainspace pages matching this pattern, including bunches of false positives particularly for "nazi" ("Internazionale", "Ashkenazi", and "Nazim" repeatedly jumped out at me while the results were scrolling by). Blacklisting would interfere with talk page creation and archiving, nominations for deletion, peer and good article reviews, you name it for all of these. About 8000 deleted titles too, granted, with more than their share of G5s among the deletion reasons; but comparatively few saltings (about 50). —Cryptic15:01, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mis-using certain characters can be used to obfuscate names in unhelpful ways. Others may be used abusively, such as the swastika character, or have no reasonable purpose for ever including in a user or page name, or may be used to disrupt page layout at a technical level. Note that in the rare cases one of these characters does need to be used (as see above) an administrator can override the blacklist. —The Anome (talk)09:53, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Publication of a new source has caused the topic ofBattle for Dream Island to cross the notability threshold.
Work on the BFDI draft by experienced editors has led to the creation of content which shows that a policy-compliant encyclopedia article is possible. As an NPP who reviews AfC submissions, I consider the draft as passing my review.
Just for the record, I only salted the article because I found a consensus to do so atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle for Dream Island as an uninvolved admin; furthermore the consensus to salt was endorsed at deletion reviewhere. (I have no interest in Battle for Dream Island and I'm not even sure what it is) Consequently I am happy to unsaltif consensus has been found that the topic is now notable (ie: nobody's going to want to AfD it again).Ritchie333(talk)(cont)10:03, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion review is the correct option here. PerWP:SALT "Editors wishing to re-create a salted title with appropriate content should either contact an administrator (preferably the protecting administrator), file a request for reduction in protection level, or use the deletion review process. To make a convincing case for re-creation, it is helpful to show a draft version of the intended article when filing a request.". To be clear, if consensus at such a review is found to be "allow recreation" or something similar, thenany administrator is free to unsalt the title without needing to consult me.Ritchie333(talk)(cont)10:17, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've been monitoring this (I'm the admin who recreated the draft). I still think we need a consensus on one source before this is mainspaced, but if that is passed then I'm OK to do the necessary un-salting etc. to achieve this. I don't think a DRV is necessary because ultimately we are not recreating the article originally deleted, and if the second source we are looking at passes the discussion at RSN because in that case we would have two instances of IRS SIGCOV, and thus a reasonably-arguableWP:GNG pass. Whether or not anyone's going to try to AFD it at that point is impossible to say - someone tried to MFD the draft shortly after creation but was prevented from doing so by the title-block - but there wouldnt be a very strong chance of a successful AFD against it.FOARP (talk)10:37, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ritchie333: Above, FOARP, who is an administrator, has announced that he will create the article through your creation protection, based on a supposedly pending conclusion about a source at RSN. Namely, it is supposed that editors at RSN should decide whether a source that is obviously a reliable source (and no one has said that it is not) containssignificant coverage, which immediately predicates the determination of notability. But RSN is not a notability forum, it is concerned with reliability of sources, not whether they confer notability, and there shouldn't have been such an RSN filing absent a concrete worry that a source is not reliable for a certain claim — there is no such worry. I think it's great that FOARP apparently wants to create the article, but this RSN business is just an excess of process and will not give any special authority to FOARP to create the article through your protection over any other editor. He would be following his editorial judgement ultimately, just like I am following my editorial judgement in wanting to create the article.
I think an RSN discussion is a low-drama way of short-cutting the inevitable litigation which is going to happen over this source. It's also a perfectly good place to get feedback on how people would characterise a source, including whether or not they think it's notability-sustaining. There are concrete reasons why this might be seen as not IRS SIGCOV, including it being something that some people would describe as a blog, and it potentially being something that some people would describe as an interview. So let's get feedback on that from people who aren't involved closely with the issue (EDIT: indeed,we're already getting that feedback).
Let me also say that jumping around and trying to force the process like this is why this article got blocked in the first place. Let's take the time to get this right.FOARP (talk)13:39, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
DRV (not necessarlynow) seems to be part of doing it right like Ritchie333 said. Skipping it and going straight to mainspace with this mega-salted thing seems likely to increase drama.Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk)13:50, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly this. Since the article's notability has been so fought-over in the past few years to the point it generated an essay, we need to make sure a consensus to reverse that is watertight and looked at by as many people as possible. Otherwise I can predict an ANI thread complaining about "unilateral overriding" of something.Ritchie333(talk)(cont)10:41, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
RSN is not a good place and nothing will happen there, and DRV is a good place and is a low-drama forum. The salting admin said "go to DRV", citing a policy saying "go to DRV". You are wrong to characterize anything I have done as "forcing the process". Instead, the RSN idea is an unnecessary procedural improvisation and an excess of process. At DRV, there is a widely accepted view that DRV is not necessary when the salting admin can be asked to unsalt, removing the need to involve other editors. That request can be granted or declined. Here, it was declined, which is just fine. That is a best practice and not forcing the process. I asked Ritchie, he wouldn't unsalt—escalate to DRV. That isthe process. —Alalch E.13:52, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
DRV closed as recreation allowed. Can an admin now remove it from the blacklist? (Also maybe other related terms like ".*object.*show.*" should be removed so that redirects can be created.)ObserveOwl (talk)15:32, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Why can you create pages with this character despite being on the title blacklist? I tested it and it works. Non-admins, test combinations likeʖ̼ orʖʼ and it will work, thoughʖɕ for example won't work because ɕ in on the titleblacklist. -BᴏᴅʜıHᴀᴙᴩ (talk,contributions)20:42, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The only entry where this character (explicitly) appears is marked <moveonly>, so you can create titles containing it but not move other pages to titles containing it. —Cryptic20:54, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There aren't any non-revdeleted/oversighted pages that abused this character in their title, either currently-existing or -deleted. However, in most such cases, I wouldexpect most such abuses to be revdeleted or oversighted, and the only practical way to find them can't see through that. There are numerous other similar characters in the same rule that have been abused in this way; about the tamest they get isUser:R℮dwolf24.Even lacking such specific examples, though, I'd rather not unblacklist this. If there are other redirects you want created that contain this character liketɕʼtɕʼ, I'm willing to do that, or you can ask atWP:AFC/R. —Cryptic23:16, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done I actually was close to adding that rule sua sponte after having seem your nomination at the MfD (but I happened to check the edit request queue before I noticed the discussion was closed).* Pppery *it has begun...16:55, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Should we preemptively exclude very short, all-ASCII draft titles likeDraft:/,Draft:17,Draft:A, andDraft:Bob? These are often used for nonsense and test pages, and are unlikely to be used for constructive drafts on topics that aren't covered yet. (Non-ASCII titles are plausible targets for articles about individual characters.) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄)04:58, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hits atquarry:query/99987, and there's indeed been more than this pattern's fair share of deletions. I took a look at a sample of the existing, non-redirect drafts in there - the first 18 of them, up to the end of the A's, out of 83 total - and fully two thirds of them were legitimate attempts at drafts of subjects that would reasonably have these titles. None were close to being acceptable, mind you, and most would have to be disambiguated before being moved into mainspace. I checked an even smaller sample of existing redirects (Draft:25KDraft:25K,Draft:4GRDraft:4GR,Draft:6B2Draft:6B2); all three had been drafts started at those titles, with those titles being not-unreasonable choices, and then accepted and moved into mainspace; albeit with the latter two being renamed afterwards. Blacklisting's likely to do more harm than good here. —Cryptic05:56, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looked at samples of existing titles, six non-redirs and six redirs (like you could've done yourself), arbitrarily starting at 'O' for each. Of the non-redirs, one was nonsense, one blank, and the other four legitimate drafts; two of those four were properly titled (one would need disambiguation if mainspaced, the other has an existing article), and the other two were the subject's initials. Of the redirs, one was initials again, and redirected to a duplicate draft at the proper title by someone else; one was a properly-named draft moved into mainspace with disambiguation added (and then the draft title retargeted to the mainspace disambig); one's a legitimate draft-to-draft shortcut; two are entirely useless redirects to their mainspace titles, created like that rather than moved; and one was a legitimate accepted draft started with a nonsensical title. That last one,Draft:SV, I'd rate as worth a thousand deletions of nonsense pages. —Cryptic06:26, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not doneTB rules are not added preemptively. And there are several legitimate pages with "kill all" in the title:kill all humans (a redirect from a catchphrase);Kill all men ->androcide (admittedly I might support deleting this at RfD); the songs "Kill All the Things", "Kill All Hippies", "Kill All Your Friends", the bookKill All Normies, the TV episodes"Kill All Others" and "First Thing We Do, Let's Kill All the Lawyers", the catchphraseLet's kill all the lawyers, an album and an EP titledLove Will Kill All, etc. On the contrary this seems to have only been used twice for vandalism in the history of Wikipedia:Kill all gays,Kill all niggers (as well asKill allison which is only included by accident andKill all the fags which seems to have been an NN song rather than an attack), in addition to a few inappropriate usernames which the modern-day title blacklist wouldn't stop.* Pppery *it has begun...19:43, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Removed That rule since I still haven't heard from JJMC89.* Pppery *it has begun...18:08, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]