Wiki English
Wiki EnglishWiki DeutschWiki Nederlands

edit Filter Noticeboard/Archive

Od Mishehu has asked that I seek group membership in the Abuse Filter editors group.

< Wiki: Edit filter noticeboard

Request for permission: User:Cobi

He also mentioned that this is probably the best place to ask for it. I am Cobi, the owner and operator of ClueBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights), one of the antivandalism bots here with over 1.1 million edits. I believe that my work with ClueBot demonstrates my technical ability at writing heuristics to identify problematic edits. Thank you. -- Cobi(t|c|b) 07:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

    Strong support - I believe that ClueBot is proof that this user can be trusted with this tool. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
    Out of curiosity, why aren't you an admin? Dragons flight (talk) 07:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
    Support. The article work is not important for an abuse filter editor. In addition, there was a precedent of granting the full adminship to the editor, who had hardly any contributions at all, in order to allow him to edit spamblacklist. Ruslik_Zero 07:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
    I support this request but I think it could've done with a bit more discussion, especially being that we're setting a precedent. (Icestorm has already enabled the userright) –xenotalk 16:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
      Sorry if I rushed things a bit. I felt that for Cobi it was noncontroversial to give him the user rights, given his technical experience with ClueBot and his trustworthiness. As for granting the abuse filter tag for future cases, wouldn't WP:PERM suffice? Icestorm815 • Talk 16:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
        As I said, it has nothing to do with to whom the right was granted, its more that we haven't had any formal discussions or consensus to grant the userright to non-admins. –xenotalk 16:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
          Yes, although we could have discussed it more, there wasn't any need for a long discussion: we'd have come to the same conclusion as there is no question that he's both trusted and capable. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
            Agreed and I'm not suggesting we strip the right or anything (that would be wonkery) - but I think we should discuss in general what qualifications someone should bring to the table as well as how the userright should be applied for, how long it should remain for comment, and how to determine if consensus exists for the granting. –xenotalk 16:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
          I'd say apply on this talkpage, and discuss for a week unless it is a no-brainer reject or grant. As to qualifications, I'd tend to avoid bureaucracy by being vague and saying "Capable and trusted", leaving it up to people who can edit the filter to decide if somebody else has the expertise necessary. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
            That seems reasonable. –xenotalk 01:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
              I'd rather suggest a seperate subpage for requests (like Wikipedia:Abuse filter/requests) where we can have a page dedicated to discussing such requests without cluttering the talk page. On a side note: Since the filter allows its editors to perform admin actions (like blocking users), there was a suggestion on WP:AN by Chris G that it should maybe only be assigned by crats like +sysop. I think if we consider how we decide which non-admins to assign the flag, we should also ponder whether we really want all admins to be able to elevate any user to a status where they can block other people (originally we have created crats exactly to control who can assign such "powers"). Regards SoWhy 12:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
                I think that if a lot of people started applying then a subpage might be a good idea, but I doubt there will be a flood of applications. I'd much rather move discussion of specific filters to a subpage and leave this page for general discussion and applications, it's more heavily watch'd. –xenotalk 13:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I must oppose non-admins getting this userright, as it is getting admin tools by the back door. I believe this was the consensus on AN as well. (This is no reflection on Cobi whom I am sure is trustworthy and would support at RfA.) Therefore I think the userright should be deactivated. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

    Out of curiosity, which "admin tools" are you talking about? The AbuseFilter, in it's current state, cannot block a user as an action to a filter, or degroup a user. It can only block individual edits. The only actions are: warn; prevent user from doing whatever triggered the filter; revoke the user's autoconfirmed status; tag the edit; and/or throttle the user (rate-limit). -- Cobi(t|c|b) 15:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
      So you could (in theory) write a filter that prevents one or multiple users from making any edits whatsoever? Imho that is quite similar to blocking a user. And theoretically, a filter could be created to disallow all editing to a certain page (or set of pages), which is equal to protection of the article, a sysop right. So Martin's concerns are well-reasoned per the technical abilities of the filter. Whether non-admins like you will do such is another concern but imho it is a potent enough tool to be abused to require some sort of community consensus to be awarded (I do think that non-admins should be able to get it, just not simply by asking an admin). Regards SoWhy 15:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
        I could (in theory) also write a bot that prevents one or multiple users from making any edits whatsoever. I could also, theoretically, make a bot which would disallow all editing to a certain page (or set of pages). Yes, the bot and I would get blocked nearly immediately, but the same goes if I start making stupid filters. All of the rejected edits are saved in the AbuseLog. -- Cobi(t|c|b) 15:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Request for permission: User:Jakew

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Jakew (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'd like to request the "edit filter managers" permission. As can be seen from User talk:Avraham#Abuse filter (and my log), this was previously assigned to me for a few hours. The permission was removed citing need for discussion; hence this thread. It was originally granted in response to my volunteering to roll up my sleeves and learn how to create a filter rule, something which interests me and I believe would be helpful to the project. Thanks to User:Avraham, my idea became what is now rule #216.

I'm happy to answer any questions. As a brief overview, I've been editing Wikipedia since 2004. I'm trained as a computer software engineer, and have an engineer's sense of caution. I understand that modifying an edit filter is a serious undertaking, and if granted this permission I'm likely to err on the side of caution. Thanks, Jakew (talk) 16:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

    Can someone please explain rule #216? DanBlackham (talk) 15:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
      Sure. There has been a particular form of anon vandalism for a long time now. Follow the link brought in the note section for an example. Right now, #216 is set up to log instances of that particular form of vandalism, which currently is met by immediate reversion. If the vandalism remains semi-regular, and the filter catches it properly, the idea is to prevent that particular kind of edit. -- Avi (talk) 15:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
    I certainly see no problem in granting it to Jake. I guess this is a stupid question and in the wrong place, but Jake, have you thought of running for adminship? You only RFA attempt was two and a half years ago and at first blush you candidacy does seem possible. MBisanz talk 16:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
      Thanks, MBisanz. I don't think it's a stupid question. To answer briefly, I'm not quite ready to request adminship again just yet, as I think some of the concerns that were raised in my first RfA, namely the need for a broader range of edits including those in the WP namespace, are still valid. Jakew (talk) 18:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
        Okey, fair enough. Assuming no one else comments in the next couple of hours, I'll assign you the userright. MBisanz talk 19:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
        I originally assigned the userright, incorrectly in hindsight as I was in ignorant of the "Cobi" decision, thus I would support the addition of the right as well. -- Avi (talk) 19:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
    Ok, edit Filter Noticeboard/Archive  Done MBisanz talk 01:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good! Prodego talk 01:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

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.


Request for permission: User:Short Brigade Harvester Boris

    The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
      Granted per consensus. MBisanz talk 03:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Avi pointed me here as the appropriate place to request permission to edit the AbuseFilter. The main reason I'm asking is that I often deal with Scibaby socks and think that my experience could be helpful in fine-tuning the filter. Let me know if you need any info on my technical background or if you have other questions. Thanks - Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Support - You look fine. We'll see what the others say. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Very helpful with Scibaby sock identification. Let's see what he can do to improve Abuse filter 205. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 01:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Support, edit filters have to be better than Raul's obscene range-blocking, and you seem to be very good at detecting the socks. Daniel (talk) 01:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Support ("It serves him RIGHT") edit Filter Noticeboard/Archive  -- Avi (talk) 01:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
    Request to remove Edit Filter access

A few weeks ago I requested edit filter access in order to help with identifying Scibaby socks. I will no longer take any part in identifying or reporting Scibaby socks, so there is no need for me to have edit filter access. Thanks to all the Edit Filter crew for your good work. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 06:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

    I've removed the flag per your request. Let us know if you want it back, and thanks for your work. Shimgray | talk | 23:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


Request for permission: User:Smallman12q

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.

I'd like to make a request for abusefilter(editfilter) permissions. Mainly, I'd like to help in the debugging, creation, implementation, documentation(which is sorely lacking) and optimization of filters. There doesn't appear to be any set criteria for being granted abusefilter permissions(though its mostly admins), but I believe I qualify. I'm willing to answer questions regarding proper syntax and whatnot.Smallman12q (talk) 14:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

    Edit Filter Manager is becoming quite popular. Ruslik_Zero 19:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I shall be WP:BOLD and ask a question. If this process seems successful, we might be able to systematize it. The following is an example filter that checks for the words "ass" or "asshole." Correct any errors and optimize it. (Note: You do not have to check for donkey-related false positives.) 

(added_lines rlike "asshole?") & !(autoconfirmed in user_groups) & !(removed_lines rlike "asshole?") & (article_namespace == 0)

Cheers, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

    Certainly:
(article_namespace == 0) & !("autoconfirmed" in user_groups) & (action == "edit") & (lcase(added_lines) rlike "ass(hole?)" & !(lcase(removed_lines) rlike "ass(hole?)"

Or for checking to make sure there's no donkey/ass in the title text/before (this one isn't too good) 

(article_namespace == 0) & !("autoconfirmed" in user_groups) & (action == "edit") & !(lcase(article_text) rlike "(donkey|ass|anal|butt)") & !(lcase(old_wikitext) rlike "(ass(hole?)|butt)") & (lcase(added_lines) rlike "ass(hole?)") & !(lcase(removed_lines) rlike "ass(hole?)")

I've based it on Special:AbuseFilter/11, Special:AbuseFilter/39, Special:AbuseFilter/46. I hope it works as I don't have access to the debugging tools=P. Smallman12q (talk) 21:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

    Unfortunately, it seems that you have made two regex errors in asshole?. What this will check for is asshol or asshole. The correct regex is ass(hole)?\b. The parentheses serve the purpose of grouping, while the \b serves the purpose of ending the word. (Otherwise, assist, asset, etc. would get flagged. \b literally means "any non-word character.") I would suggest that you take a look at this handy reference. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
      =(.You are correct. Well I read up on regex and came up with this a[s$][s$](h[o0][l1]e?|)\b. It catches ass pretty well=P. When I ran it through regextester however, it catches a$$hat and a$shat, but not asshat? Well, I did fail your first test, but I still hope you will see my willingness to learn and assist as the determining factor.Smallman12q (talk) 00:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
        Don't worry. Regex isn't hard. :-) King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Question 2. Check for the following: 

Brian is a bold text. Brian is a headline text. Brianna is a bold text. Brianna is a headline text.

Do a batch test on my contribs, with "Show changes that do not match the filter" enabled. You should see the ones with edit summary "Smallman12q #[1-4]" positive and "Smallman12q #[5-8]" negative. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

(My name is not Brian btw.) -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

For this exercise, you will not need autoconfirmed, namespace, etc. stuff, just the regex. Just a comment (for reference): For the other stuff, (action == "edit") is unnecessary, since pretty much all !autoconfirmed changes are edits. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I forgot you can't do a batch test without the permission. I guess you'll need to do it manually: http://regexpal.com. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

    Well I found the page history at User:King_of_Hearts/Sandbox/AbuseFilter. I'm a bit confused as to what you want me to check for though? Is this it: Brian(na|) is a (bold|headline) text.\b(I don't think the \b is needed at the end).Smallman12q (talk) 22:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
      See my talk page for a problem. Yes \b is unnecessary, as no one would append a character immediately after a period. (Even if they did, so what?) -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
        *cough*. You are both wrong. .(Period) isn't a literal period. .(Period) matches any single character. So text.\b would match "texta ", "text1 ", etc. Prodego talk 22:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
          *cough cough*. Prodego, you're also wrong. When I say "see my talk page," that's what I mean. (Wrong as in, not the regex, but the evaluation of the problem.) -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
            *hack wheeze* Read the problem! Nonsense! That sounds like work! :) (I was basing my comment on "\b is unnecessary, as no one would append a character immediately after a period.") Prodego talk 03:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
              SpecialFilter#414 - IF count_cases(cold symptoms) > 2 DISTRIBUTE COUGH DROPS. -- Avi (talk) 03:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

So...when I find out whether I qualify or not...?Smallman12q (talk) 20:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

    Shouldn't we wait and see the outcome of the Village Pump topic you opened? Regards, MacMedtalkstalk 21:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
      Sure, why not. Hopefully there will be more discussion(perhaps it should be added to centralized discussion). I didn't mean to rush, I was simply hoping to elicit a response=D. Smallman12q (talk) 21:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
    Hello Smallman12q. I hope you don't mind if I butt in with a comment, well perhaps a question or suggestion, while we're waiting for comment on process. It applies equally to other applications for permissions on this page. Personally I find that Roux has hit the nail squarely on the head in the aforementioned other discussion.[1] The village pump can be slow sometimes, but I wonder if there's a lack of further comment because the initial response was so blindingly obvious. What I would like to see is a bigger case being made for why it would be an advantage to grant this right. Many of the things you mention don't require permissions, and I would expect some proven experience in them before applying for the right. Cobi for example (now a sysop) has bots with millions of edits and a high level of trust. The other non-sysop with the permission that I know of has specialist knowledge of a particular sockpuppeteer targeted by a filter, as evidenced by active support from a number of admins. I just haven't seen it from anyone else yet. There seems to me to be plenty of sysops around to edit the filters. You must accept there is some risk to granting this right to someone who hasn't been through the same scrutiny as a sysop. Where is the advantage to balance this risk? -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
      I appreciate your remark: I always prefer discussion to silence=D. I do agree with Roux; abusefilter (and sysop tools) require a high level of trust by the general wikipedian community. An abusefilter, like sysop tools could be seriously misused if in the wrong hands (essentially blocking all edits). While documentation(which I have started) does not require permission, optimization and the creation of new filters does.
      There isn't a set criteria; hence the thread at the village pump. As for advantage, that's where the wikipedia community comes in. As with an RFA, a consensus should be reached to determine whether granting such permissions is worth the risk(that's how I see it). The rationale behind that conensus should be held to some kind of standards...as yet to be determined.Smallman12q (talk) 00:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
        It's been a few days...so...Smallman12q (talk) 14:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
          Patiently awaits response...Smallman12q (talk) 14:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
            This request is currently unsupported as far as I can tell. I'd suggest continuing to gain experience with regex and perhaps draft proposed filters (or suggest changes to existing filters) on this page for the next little while. I'm sure that after you have demonstrated your ability to write error-free filters people would be willing to support granting you this userright. (There is of course, the other path to gaining this userright you may wish to explore =) –xenotalk 15:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
    =(. I was looking forward to work on improving the edit filter.(While rfa may be an option, I don't really have a use for admin tools other than the edit filter).Smallman12q (talk) 00:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
      I think you should also get an understanding of what warrants a filter: it has to be (in pseudocode): (frequent|malicious)&(difficult to prevent otherwise)&(represent consensus or other uncontroversial things, e.g. anti-vandalism). For instance, Wiki: Edit filter/Requested#New User Imposed Restrictions doesn't seem like a good choice for a filter because there is nothing preventing new users from prodding/deprodding articles. Moreover, even if we had such a filter, checking for "ipblock-exempt" and "sysop" in user_groups is unnecessary since they are all autoconfirmed (technically, they don't have to be, but in practice they are). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
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.


Request for permission: User:MacMed

I've done some work with regex, and I also have some experience with programming languages like JavaScript (advanced beginner). I feel that I would be able to contribute positively to the Edit Filter, and I would discuss any major changes or questions I had on talk before enacting said changes. I am also open to any questions or "testing" to evaluate my candidacy/competence. Regards, MacMedtalkstalk 18:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

    Q: According to your userpage, you've been on Wikipedia for just shy of 3 months. EFM is a powerful permission that requires both technical knowledge and a refined understanding of Wikipedia's editing policies. Can you explain why you feel you meet both these requirements? –xenotalk 18:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
      A: I feel that I have the technical knowledge from dealing with some programming situations as well as working with Wikipedia regex in the past. Again, I am willing to answer/solve any examples or problems you may wish to present me with. As for the editing policies, I don't know if there is a way to prove that to you, but I shall try. Personally, I believe that a Wikipedian should be judged on the maturity and usefulness of their edits, rather than their wiki-age. I have made mistakes in the past, but once I was informed of the mistake I did not perform that same mistake again. Some of our current policies are, to me, self-explanatory and common sense (ie. WP:NPA, WP:AGF, WP:BITE, etc.). Others, like the notability policy and it's various subpolicies are more complex, but can be understood and taken to heart. I am not just dropping numerous links here, I can define and give you a description of each policy if you wish. Finally, as I said above, any questions I have, or actions I am unsure about, will be discussed either here or on the relevant notice/discussion board before the action is taken. Regards, MacMedtalkstalk 18:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
        Thanks. I must admit, in general I am apprehensive giving this right out to folks with such a short history. –xenotalk 18:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
    Q: Could you come up with a net-new filter that you might work on were this request successful? You may describe it and/or show the code. –xenotalk 18:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
      A: The first thing I would probably do is continue to help out User:Otterathome with the Uncyclopedia vandalism he seems to be experiencing. That coding is simple. Another idea I have is to help out with the seemingly common problem at WikiProject Biographies, which is the creation of biographic articles, which are then tagged with the {{WPBiography}} template, without the |listas= parameter. The code could get a little complicated, but I think I could handle it. A start could be:
(article_namespace = 1) & (lcase(added_lines) rlike "{{(WPBiography|BIO|WPBIO)") & !(lcase(added_lines) contain "|listas")

Not sure if there is already a filter for that, but it's an idea. The filter would log and warn, with a warning template with something like "You recently tagged an article with a WikiProject Biography tag, but did not include a |listas= parameter. When you can, please return to the article and include the parameter. Thank you." I would also keep an eye on requested filters, and any requests I receive personally, while helping with team collaboration when necessary. Regards, MacMedtalkstalk 19:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

    It baffles me why anyone would consider failing to add a parameter to a maintenance template to be abuse. Gurch (talk) 23:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
      That's why the name was changed to "edit filter" :). This would not disallow the edit, nor would the warning template be derogatory or accusative. It would just say "We noticed that you forgot to add this parameter. If you could, would you mind adding it? Thanks," It wouldn't disallow the edit or look negative on the editor. Just a simple reminder. Regards, MacMedtalkstalk 00:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
        Changing the name of something doesn't change its effect, nor the fact that it is being misused outside of its designed purpose. Gurch (talk) 21:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


Request for permission: User:Hintswen

Not sure if this is the right place buy anyway... I've started my own wiki and now I've started to get vandalism. I'm looking at using the AbuseFilter extension for my wiki and so I want permission to see the hidden filters here so I can copy them over to my wiki. Hintswen  Talk | Contribs  01:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

    To me this does not seem like a valid reason for this permission. Many hidden filters are wikipedia specific, and the reason they are hidden is to stop just anyone from inspecting or copying them, so as to stop the vandals that they are aimed at from seeing them. Martin451 (talk) 01:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
    Could you give us a link to the wiki that you want the extension for? MacMedtalkstalk 01:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
      HabboWiki.org is the wiki I am looking at installing it on. It's only new (made it at the start of the month) but it's aimed at an audience more likely to vandalize it.Hintswen  Talk | Contribs  02:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
    This isn't a vote, so no Oppose or Support. Consensus in its truest form this is, because we don't have a million people here. Generally we wouldn't give EFeditor just so people can see private filters, however, this was done once before (for Charitwo, who also wanted to copy them over to his own wiki). The key thing here is that the PUBLIC filters tend to be the complicated ones, the private ones are the simple ones, the reason they are private is because they would be easy to get around. Prodego talk 01:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
      I agree with Prodego here. I checked the recent changes for the wiki, and there is some vandalism, but most of it is basic profanity. AFAIK, the profanity filter is public. Again, as Prodego said above, most of the private filters are private because they are very simplistic and targeted at very exact kinds of vandalism (guessing here). It's really up to the admins here, but I personally don't really see the harm in letting Hintswen see the private filters. Maybe even agree to have the perm taken away after importing whatever filters he/she needs? Regards, MacMedtalkstalk 02:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
        Well I don't mind skipping the private filters. I'm guessing the public filters will catch most (if not all) of the vandalism for now and anything else I'll just have to make my own filters for. As I said, it's only a new wiki so there wont be much vandalism for now anyway. Just thought I'd ask for the permission so I could get the whole lot (for future vandalism). Hintswen  Talk | Contribs  02:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
          If it's a specific one you want, someone can always email it to you. — Jake Wartenberg 16:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
  • edit Filter Noticeboard/Archive  Not done You don't need the edit filter manager to view public filters. –xenotalk 17:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


Request for permission: User:Chzz

 – EFM permission granted to User:Chzz to be used to view only unless an explicit request to be allowed to edit as well is granted. Chzz is reminded not to discuss details of private filters except with other edit filter managers in a non-public venue. –xenotalk 17:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to be able to view the current edit filters; I don't intend to modify anything, but realize that the permission would enable me to do so; per the note "requests for assignment of the "Edit Filter managers" group to non-admins should be made at Wikipedia talk:Edit filter" I post this here.  Chzz  ►  02:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

    If you don't intend to modify anything, I don't see the point. Prodego talk 04:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
      (a) I trust Chzz with "view only".
      (b) I don't think "view only" exists. I only see "edit filter manager", which is read/write.
      (c) Prodego, the point is to see filters and logs that are normally hidden or locked. It was certainly a reason I wanted to get the admin bit. tedder (talk) 06:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
        Why would you need to see the hidden filters if you aren't going to change any of them? All the hit logs are public, the only logs that are hidden for hidden filters is the history of the filter, not the hit log. What does Chzz intend to use the ability to view hidden filters to do, if not edit them? Prodego talk 12:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
          Curiosity. In reality, every good editor who won't use the information to bypass the filters should be able to view it automatically. As we can't do this, I see no problem with giving it to a trustworthy editor who specifically asks for it. Ale_Jrbtalk 13:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
            Right. It answers the "why did edit X get flagged, but edit Y didn't get flagged?". That's key information. Even if someone doesn't have the skills and/or the bit to change a rule themselves, they can help by researching the information, showing test cases, etc. tedder (talk) 16:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
              That information is useless if you don't use it for anything, and I am not particularly interested in dozens of people requesting a user right they have no intention to use, simply so they can have it. "Researching the information, showing test cases, etc" can be done without the abusefilter manager right, and only for the 'private' filters can the "why was x caught and not y" not be answered. As to your comment Ale jrb, if you aren't going to do anything with a user right there is no point in you having it. 'What will you do as a sysop' has been question #1 on RfAs since the questions section was created. Prodego talk 17:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
                Viewing the details of the filter is doing something with the right. And first, there are not dozens of requests - there's one. Second, you don't have to be particularly interested - any admin can grant it. There's no load on the wiki, and if the user is trustworthy and isn't going to change the filter, there's no real reason that they shouldn't have it - 'I don't like it' doesn't count. And finally, this isn't an RfA - arguably, however, having +sysop just so you could view deleted articles would be technically sufficient, even if it wouldn't get through RfA. Hell, someone with 50 edits passed just to edit a blacklist. Ale_Jrbtalk 20:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
    That rationale is no better than wanting adminship so you can look at deleted pages, which as you say, would never fly. Any admin can, but may not grant the abuse filter manager right, that is why the instructions are to discuss here. There are only 2 non-admins with the abuse filter manager right. It is annoying enough with admins giving themselves the right and then doing nothing. Prodego talk 20:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
      I am aware that admins shouldn't just go round granting the right. It's simply that your comments make it sound like you are personally irritated by the request because your workload will increase or something, which is completely irrelevant: if I've completely misread that, sorry! And that RfA would be most likely to fail on trust issues - I would suggest that a sufficiently trusted user could get through RfA saying they would only look at deleted pages; it would just never happen because such users are rare and generally want adminship to perform the tasks anyway. And many people also feel that we make too big-a-deal of +sysop. Anyhow, the current number of people with the right or what would happen in an RfA is irrelevant - this is a discussion of Chzz, here. And I see no real reason why not. And finally, if someone has the right but does nothing with it (take me, for example), in what way does that affect you? Cheers, Ale_Jrbtalk 20:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
        I gave myself the permission to examine what was happening, not with any particular intent to modify things or test new ideas, though I may eventually do it also--I do know basic regex. It's a reasonable thing to want to do. For that matter, one of the main reasons i asked to become an admin was to check deleted pages to see if they could be rescued, and I said so at the time, and it was accepted as a perfectly good reason--and so I have been doing all along--though I've of course gotten into some other things also. This is a much less powerful privilege than sysop, and we shouln't be over-restrictive about it. DGG ( talk ) 18:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Q. Is there a certain private filter you're planning to look at, perhaps help with suggestions on how to improve it, etc? –xenotalk 20:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
      (EC) Blimey, I didn't intend to cause a big deal here! I'm really not bothered; don't worry about it. The reason that I asked was, I was looking at some rather persistent ongoing IP vandalism, from wide-ranging IPs over several articles. Some IPs have been blocked, and a couple of pages were protected. I had a chat with some others about it, and one thing I wondered was, if the edit-filter might be one way of tracking such a thing. I know that I could ask someone about it, but thought that if I could look at the existing ones, it might put me in a better position to suggest an appropriate filter or something. Note, this is not the "rationale" for wanting it, I'm just explaining how I came here, and it might serve as an example of why someone might want to look at these things. I expect I could spend hours thinking about all kinds of reasons for wanting to see it, but really - like RfA - it's simply not worth the trouble.  Chzz  ►  22:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


  • Q. What's with the block log for goatse? -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
    I was not going to answer this question, because I don't see the relevance, but I don't want to be accused of hiding anything - so; forgive me if the exact details are hazy, I can check them if necessary;
    Some year-and-four-months ago, shortly after becoming a 'serious' contributor, I was full of the spirit of WP:BOLD, and embraced the freedom of Wiki English. I thought that adding an image would make the article on 'goatse' much more informative, and I felt that the discussions on the topic did not show any policy-based reasoning that prohibited just going ahead and adding one. I uploaded the image, and it was almost instantly deleted, so with righteous indignation, I tried again, and a third time - and was blocked for just over 1 hour.
    I certainly wouldn't do anything like that now that I understand things better; I would, instead, work towards consensus. I've made quite a few contributions since then, and not had any significant drama at all.  Chzz  ►  00:56, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Q. If you see an apparent typo in a hidden filter would you a) do nothing b) fix it c) ask someone on this page to fix it d) ask a friendly admin on their talk page to fix it e) ask someone on IRC to fix it? f) something else? -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
    I certainly wouldn't be so naive as to post any portion of a hidden filter on-wiki, or indeed on any other public channel.
    Nor would I edit it (as I stated in my initial request).
    I would not approach any old 'friendly admin', as I am aware that not all admins have access to this area, and although they could grant it to themselves, many would not be familiar with the nature of the filters.
    Most likely, some user that I knew to be involved with edit-filters would be active on IRC (identified with their password, etc) and I would ask them there about it, via a "PM" (personal message). Failing that, well, it would depend on the significance, urgency, and nature of the typo. It might be appropriate to put a note on this page, e.g. "There is a typo in edit filter number xx". Most likely is I'd wait until someone I knew to be appropriate was online; otherwise, I could email.
    I am fully aware of the necessity for both discretion in discussions of filter contents, and in the need for caution in any change to them.  Chzz  ►  00:56, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
      Yes, because you're trying to be useful, which seems to be frowned upon here in favour of DHS-style "if you're not one of us you're a terrorist vandal" paranoia. Gurch (talk) 15:41, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I've granted this request. The only objection was about the concept of granting an editing right for view-only purposes. Since the alternative below doesn't exist (and we're actually still waiting for it to be rolled into admin package, so I wouldn't hold my breath for a separate userright) and Chzz is a trusted user, the permission should allow him to assist in developing better filters. And if not, no harm done. –xenotalk 17:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


Request for permission: User:Triplestop

Hello. I would like to be granted the abusefilter right, if possible. I have a good understanding of Regex, and filter syntax, and I have my own Wiki on my PC I experiment with. Filter 249 was created at my suggestion, which routinely catches people like this [2]. I would like to help optimize existing filters and see if there are any other ideas I get as I do whatever it is I do normally. I have a clean block log and rollback enabled. Triplestop x3 02:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


Request for permission: User:Soap

    I would be interested too

I had originally planned to ask for edit filter access a few weeks ago, but after working at the false positives page answering reports I came to believe that most of the false positives were triggering on the publically viewable filters, and that the remaining flaws in the edit filters were unavoidable and would simply have to be tolerated and cleaned up. But then I saw Triplestop's thread on AN and that he had gone on to change an existing filter to patch a hole that had apparently not been seen by anyone else up until now. And so I realize that false positives are not our only problem, and that there is plenty of room for improvement. I would like to help. I think I have a proven record of being cautious and am willing to answer questions as the other people requesting access have done.

If granted access, I would make changes that would eliminate false positives without letting through actual vandalism, and tweak existing filters to catch vandalism without triggering (excessive) false positives. For example, I think the changes I suggested above in the "party pooper" section would be a good idea because "party pooper" is not common in vandal edits and it wouldn't add much to the processing time of the filter since it would only appear in the same statement as the other words above. Other than the "party pooper" link given above, I don't have any urgent plans to make changes to the filters, although I will be constantly looking.

Having edit filter permissions would also help me find out the cause of problems that aren't apparent on first glance, if I'm understanding correctly that this test page I can't access is a place I can test out the filters (I know there's also test.wikipedia.org, but some of the cases that occur on enwiki can't be replicated there).

If you do not think you can use me for this position, please let me know why. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 23:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

    Do you know Regular Expressions? or anything else related to programming? Triplestop x3 03:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
      Somewhat. I think I understand the code of all the public filters that I see, although some of them, such as Filter 9, are complex enough that I'd want to test any changes I make to make sure I'm not introducing a typo that would have unintended consequences. If I understand correctly there is a testing ground available to all approved users, and if not, there's test.wikipedia.org. I also have a text editor that supports syntax highlighting so I can more easily make sense of sequences like "(is|\'s|are|\'re|u\s*r\b)\s+(a|an|)\s*". (If I'm correct this is just a foolproof way to catch variants of "you're an..." There are some unfamiliar functions here, such as ccnorm, but they seem to be explained in the drop down menus. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 04:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment. Some time ago I noticed that Soap has been doing a great work on WP:Edit filter/False positives. Yesterday I came to a conclusion that he may need the EFM permission in order to handle false positives reports more effectively. To my surprise he applied for the EFM access before I even proposed him it to him myself. I studied the editing history of Soap and found nothing that can preclude me from grating him the EFM permission. Since there has been no objections for more than 24 h, I am going to do assign the EFM permission. Ruslik_Zero 16:47, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

    You shouldn't have done that. Prodego talk 16:51, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
      Why? Ruslik_Zero 17:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
        Discussions on this page are slow, 24 hours isn't much time here. For example, from the 18th to the 25th (of this month) there were no comments on this page at all. Prodego talk 17:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
          Comments appear very quickly if there is something to discuss. That there were nothing between 18 and 25 only indicates that nobody found a topic worthy of a comment. Beside I think it is reasonable to give this permission to the editor who has been answering all those false positives reports, when everybody (including you and me) seems to have forgotten that the page for FP reports exists. Ruslik_Zero 17:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
            Thank you for granting me permission. I assure everyone that I won't do anything hasty. I don't see any urgent problems with the filters right now and so I have no plans for immediate action (Triplestop made my requested change to filter 46 yesterday). I plan to start out by working on existing filters, and only to fix obvious loopholes, eliminate conditions that I think would be uncontroversial (like the party pooper thing above), and fix typos (I remember once seeing a filter designed to trigger on users with <50 edits turn out to have been accidentally set to trigger only on >50 edits instead; it was fixed quickly but even in that short time there were lots of erroneous tags; in fact that's how I found the mistake). However, since I have heard some people complain about people getting edit filter access and doing nothing with it, I assure you that even if you don't see me making any changes to the filters right away, it only means I haven't found anything necessary and obvious to do. And I will continue to work at the False positives page, and although it's true that most of the reports on that page don't require anyone with edit filter access to respond to, I will appreciate having the ability to act for those rare cases that do. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 19:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
      I don't see a problem w/ granting EF permission to someone who already works in false positives. Likewise I don't see a reason to wait some unspecified period of time based on the local talk page churn. Protonk (talk) 21:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


Request for permission: User:Delicious carbuncle

I would like to request permission to view and edit filters, although it is unlikely that I will edit them. I have an unblemished block log and am often pleasant to strangers in real life. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

    If it is unlikely you will edit them, why are you requesting the permission? Prodego talk 06:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
      A fair question. I may wish to create or edit filters in the future and being able to review the changes made by others will enable me to become familiar with the use and content of the existing filters. If view-only permission were available, I would request that until I identified a need to edit, but such permissions do not yet appear to exist. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
    Does this have anything to do with someone else recently being granted permission to edit the filter? Protonk (talk) 18:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
      In that it made me aware of the possibility, yes. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
        Not saying this is the case with DC, but I believe that some people want it for the sake of having it and being able to brag to their friends on IRC that they can see details of private filters not available to the general public. Being that security is only as strong as its' weakest link, I find the idea of giving abusefilter to non-admins a terrible idea. @Kate (talk) 09:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
          Katerenka, I completely agree. I think that the entire idea that admins automatically have the ability to edit filters is misguided. There should be some evaluation of need and skills, ideally with the ability to view filters split from the ability to edit filters. There is an argument to be made that all admins should be able to view filters in order to respond to queries about disallowed edits, but I suspect that in practice the only people likely to look at filter criteria are those who have the ability to understand the regex and therefore the same people likely to want to edit the filters. Since it is possible for filters to block editors, I do not believe that any non-admins should be able to edit filter criteria. With that said, since we're handing out editfilter permissions to non-admins, I'm requesting it. If you check my permissions, you will see that I don't even have rollback, and I have no interest in participating in IRC. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:09, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
              So you are saying this is request was made to try and make a point? Past community discussions have held that the edit filter may be granted to non-admins on a case-by-case basis. If you wish to revisit this discussion, then initiate a discussion: don't beat around the bush. –xenotalk 15:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
                Xeno, I don't see how you arrived at that conclusion. My request for editfilter permission is unrelated to my belief that non-admins should not be granted the permission. I restated that request in my most reply to Katerenka. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
            I have not discussed abuse filters on IRC except with an admin in private. Triplestop x3 21:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
        Is it actually possible for edit filters to automatically block editors? I thought that idea had been debated and discarded early on. Though it is possible it could be enabled in the future. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 16:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I note that User:Soap's request has been granted, but mine is still pending, so I'm reiterating my request in case there was any confusion. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

      "I may wish to create or edit filters in the future and being able to review the changes made by others will enable me to become familiar with the use and content of the existing filters."
    But you don't need the permission to review changes to the edit filter - simply click Special:AbuseFilter/history –xenotalk 19:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
        If you have an objection to granting me the edit filter privileges that I have requested, please express it. If you don't, would you mind granting the request? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:47, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe I have made my objection clear, the same objection I have with Chzz and Jakew, namely that if users are not using the rights for anything, they shouldn't have them. Since you seem to be indicating that you do not intend to use the right, I object to giving you them. Prodego talk 01:22, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

    That's not at all what I said, however even if it were, that does not seem to be reason enough to refuse to grant me edit rights since both Chzz and Jakew were granted them and most admins have probably not edited filters let alone looked at the regex. Your comment when Jakew was granted edit filter permission was "Sounds good". (Incidentally, Chzz no longer has edit filter rights.) I have declared an intention to edit filters and asked for the appropriate permissions. I am hopeful that they will be forthcoming, but if there is a sincere objection please voice it clearly so that I may have a chance to fully address it. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:22, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
      My problem with Jakew is that he has still not used it. You said "it is unlikely that I will edit [the filters]". My belief is that those who don't want to use AFE should not have AFE. For admins who have granted it to themselves, there is nothing I can do. My objection is with the process, and my objection is that you say yourself it is unlikely you will do anything with the right. Prodego talk 04:42, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
        I have already clarified that statement and re-declared my intention to edit filters. I am reluctant to assert that I will immediately begin editing filters because I think this is something that should not be rushed into hastily and because I have not confirmed support for new filters ideas or conditions. As you know from my earlier statements, I agree that the permissioning of filters is too lax, but I have been reminded that this is not the place for that discussion. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
          I gave Soap the EFM permission, because he works on WP:FALSEPOS and needs it. I do not have any objections to you having the EFM access. On the other hand I am not going to do grant it to you myself, because I do not see a clear need for it. Ruslik_Zero 10:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


Request for permission: User:Btilm

I would like to request the edit filter right. I would like to create filters that will block any malicious-like scripts. I would also enjoy being able to view private filters. BtilmHappy Holidays! 05:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

    I can assure you that there is nothing enjoyable in the codes of private filters. Ruslik_Zero 20:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
      Well, I will at least like to create a filter for malicious scripts. BtilmHappy Holidays! 01:04, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
        Can you provide an example of such malicious scripts and what code you would write to block it? Triplestop x3 01:09, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
          There are many little codes that could possibly freeze one's browser. That would be this code's only harm. Here is what a vandal would type, with or without the .
          This is a script that keeps writing hello until you close the frozen browser.
          This are the conditions: !("sysop" in user_groups) & (ccnorm(added_lines) rlike "(