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

Lack of article work. -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 07:41, 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) –xeno^talk 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. –xeno^talk 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. –xeno^talk 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. –xeno^talk 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. –xeno^talk 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 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)

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

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

(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?)")

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

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, MacMed^talk_stalk 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? –xeno^talk 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, MacMed^talk_stalk 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. –xeno^talk 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. –xeno^talk 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, MacMed^talk_stalk 19:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Would you care to comment at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Criteria_for_Abusefilter.2Feditfilter_permissions for helping devolp criteria for granting nonadmins permissions?Smallman12q (talk) 21:42, 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, MacMed^talk_stalk 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)

Is this closed, or what? MacMed^talk_stalk 23:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

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? MacMed^talk_stalk 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, MacMed^talk_stalk 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)

•  Not done You don't need the edit filter manager to view public filters. –xeno^talk 17:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

 – 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. –xeno^talk 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_Jrb^talk 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_Jrb^talk 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_Jrb^talk 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? –xeno^talk 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 Wikipedia. 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)

o-/ did I fail?  Chzz  ►  01:35, 23 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. –xeno^talk 17:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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. –xeno^talk 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)

Not presently, no. Though, I suppose one could write a filter preventing a user from making any edit... –xeno^talk 16:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying the blocking capability is not presently used in any filters or that it is not enabled for English WP? If it's the latter, then we need to edit Wikipedia:Edit filter to remove references to this capability. Can someone point me at the relevant discussions? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Correct. And fixed [3], thanks for pointing that out. –xeno^talk 16:50, 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 –xeno^talk 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)

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. Btilm_{Happy 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. Btilm_{Happy 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 <script> and </script>. <script>while (1==1) document.write('hello')</script>

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 "(<script>)?(\n)?while \(?.*==.*\)?\{?(\n)?\{?(document.write|alert)\('.*')\}?(\n)?\}?(</?script>)?")

I would first test the code by flagging the edit in the edit filter log. Once I get it right, I would disallow the code. Btilm_{Happy Holidays!} 17:36, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, the MediaWiki markup doesn't allow scripts, so what you describe wouldn't happen on Wikipedia... ╟─TreasuryTag►consulate─╢ 17:38, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I am talking about if a vandal puts it on there js page, or if a user is testing something out. Btilm_{Happy Holidays!} 17:52, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Is "vandals injecting malicious code" a recurring problem? Is there even a single precedent of vandals doing js mischief? What a vandal puts in his own .js will affect only his own browser anyway, not others. Looks like a solution in search of problem to me.--Zvn (talk) 20:26, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

If you know of some way to run scripts for people other than yourself that doesn't require admin rights, please contact securitywikimedia.org, as that would be a rather serious issue that should be fixed in the software. Mr.Z-man 19:04, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

You're kinda right, Zvn. Maybe an admin should try that instead of a block sometime. Another reason, now that I think about it, is to be able to create new filters wanted here. One is the addition of "you." I could do that. I will give an example.

Conditions: !("sysop" in user_groups) & (article_namespace == 0) & (lcase(added_lines) rlike "\b(you('?re?(el(f|ve))?s?|'?ll|)|y'?all'?s?)\b")

I would test it by flagging it; and then, once I get it going, I would then choose to flag the edit and tag the edit (the tag would be something like possible addition of the word you). Btilm_{Happy Holidays!} 02:49, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Can you elaborate on what types of edits there should or should not be an abuse filter for? Triplestop x3 04:13, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, the first thing I would like to point out is, if I get the abusefilter right, I would never check the box to revoke the autoconfirmed status, because I can't think of a single instance to use it on; and due to the fact that probably every filter has, or at one point had, a false positive. For example, a filter that detects when a user writes a phone number wouldn't be the best idea in the world. There could be many false positives, where phone numbers should be included in an article, like 555 (telephone number), 867-5309/Jenny, and Telephone number. A filter that wouldn't be so bad would be one that detects when new users create an article via the article wizard and leaves, under external links, example.com. Articles that have that are usually deleted. The criteria for that would probably be something like this: edit count - under 30 edits and account age - 2 days or less. If I do get the right, it would help me answer the entire why did X get flagged, but not Y business on private filters. This process would also help me discover false positives for private filters, and I will still be looking for false positives on public filters. I would probably fix some false positives and moniter the requested filters. Btilm_{Happy Holidays!} 05:32, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

 Not done I can't say with confidence after reading the above discussion that you have the knowledge of what the abuse filter is to be used for, nor can I say that you know how to code for it. NW (Talk) 16:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, please give me a clear case to code and I will code it to the best of my abilities. Btilm 17:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Please? I really have a chance of doing it. I do understand it, but you don't have confidence in me. So how about some Q and A? Btilm 03:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I want to start off by saying that I recognize this will likely be a highly controversial request. I will take no offense if it is denied outright. However, I figured that there is no harm in making the request, but potential gain if it is granted, so either way there's no net loss. I'd like to request the edit filter manager permissions. I recognize that I'm not an administrator and that granting this access is rare, but I have two primary reasons for the request:

• I feel that I can help out with outstanding requests for filters. I am a software engineer that works on safety-critical systems, so I feel that I not only have the expertise to do this, but also I understand the necessity of getting it right the first time. If I were to create a filter, I would not only test it thoroughly, but I would also not activate it until it has had at least one second opinion, preferably from someone with more experience than myself.
• I also am currently working on a bot, part of CollabRC which uses artificial intelligence to judge vandalism and either raise alerts or outright revert. I feel that the ability to view some of the private filters may give me insight on certain "genes", such as those I have already developed, that would be appropriate to build to benefit the bot.

I have a history of anti-vandalism efforts and I hope this is sufficient to acquire your confidence that I would not misuse the tool, but I totally understand that my lack of history in this particular area is lacking, so I would also not take offense to a denial of this permission. I would note that, should the permission be granted conditionally (such as on the condition that I never activate a filter on my own) I would certainly adhere to those conditions. I tried to be as brief as I could while explaining the full reasons behind my request; if you have any questions for me please don't hesitate to ask. I will be more than happy to explain in more detail any questions about my qualifications, concerns about my integrity, or details on my reasons for desiring this permission. Thanks. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 05:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

• Hi, Shirik. I believe you may be very qualified for the bit. Would you apply your methods ("Genetics") to abuse filters? If so, how? Triplestop x3 06:26, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
  • If I could, I would. (By the way, before we go too far, I want to clarify that I didn't "invent" these methods -- it's a well known artificial intelligence paradigm; there are even two articles on it: genetic programming and genetic algorithms, but I digress). There's two sides to this. Firstly, the concept of genetic programming relies on the ability for a software concept (in the case of an edit filter application, it would be more like a regular expression, though that's not entirely how WP:EF works) to adapt on its own. Unfortunately, edit filters, as they are designed now, cannot do that. However, as the bot continues to train itself, I would be very interested in taking those genes that it determines to be extremely valuable and turning them into edit filters. Naturally, this would still have to go through intense scrutiny because, in this case, not only is it something we don't want to apply indiscriminately, it is something that wasn't even developed by a human, so it would need careful review. Should User:CollabRCBot happen to determine some interesting components of inappropriate content that are representable by an edit filter, I would be more than willing to try to adapt it to one. Unfortunately, because the very nature of genetic algorithms are based off randomness and survival of the fittest, I cannot really predict if what it produces will be able to be an edit filter. Sorry for such a detailed response. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 06:34, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
    • We do have many filters that work the way you describe, however none of them really go by that point system. Can you discuss how you would handle issues such as accuracy, false positives and performance? Triplestop x3 20:25, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
      • Certainly. I think one of the best ways to describe my efforts at ensuring accuracy are through examples of past work. One of the things I to ensure accuracy is to write unit tests for operations, such as those found here. What I would do is, before implementing the filter, I would create a set of test posts which include (1) things that should be caught by the filter and (2) things that should not be caught by the filter (but preferably are very close). Then, after implementation, I would test the filter against these test posts. The chances of writing both the test and the filter wrong are much smaller than just the filter itself. Additionally, I strongly believe in code review and would still look for a review to ensure accuracy. Addressing performance, I realize that string manipulation is much more complex than others expect it to be. Certain things should not be filters as they are better addressed by users on huggle, etc., especially if the filter will affect a very small proportion of articles but would still have to test every edit. I would plan to incorporate short-circuit logic in an effort to minimize the number of operations that must be done, and leave string manipulation for the very end of the filter. The more we can eliminate early in the filter test (such as restricting to only non-autoconfirmed users), the better. Finally, with regards to false positives, I would hope that it never happens, but perhaps that's too utopian. If I were to create a filter, I would be monitoring it significantly for at least the next week or more (depending on how complex it is), watching what trips it. If there are any false positives, then that indicates a problem to me - the next question is "is the fix worth it". False positives, in my opinion, are unacceptable except for those that are tags (and even then, false positives should be as rare as possible), so those filters that disallow a post, etc., must be fixed or disabled. If the performance penalty for fixing the filter is too significant, then it should be disabled and left for more complex methods like human vandal-fighters or bots. Unfortunately, this is a very case-specific judgement call and is a bit difficult to discuss abstractly, but I hope that I explained my thought process well enough for you to understand my plan of attack. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 21:39, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok with me. Prodego ^talk 23:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done Prodego ^talk 19:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello,

The devs enabled AbuseFilter on Turkish Wikimedia two days ago, and now we are in need of already developed filters you guys have over here.

I need to access the hidden filters and to be able to export them. I am an admin and crat on Turkish Wikipedia (click to verify), the founder of Wikimedia Türkiye, and has been a Wikimedian for over 3 years, so I can be trusted.

I hereby pledge that I will not make a single EFM edit (feel free to revoke the right if you see me editing them), and if I decide to work on them after gaining some experience, I will ask for an additional permission here. I'd normally go for a temporary access, but the filters are constantly developed, and I anticipate that I'll have to check them regularly in order for us to be in synch.

Cheers

Vito Genovese 16:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The private English Wikipedia filters would be of little utility for any other project. Ruslik_Zero 17:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the general structure and makeup of the filters would be instructive. I am minded to grant this request, but will wait for additional opinions. –xeno^talk 17:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Vito, as Xeno said the private filters on this Wiki would not be very useful as they target specific vandals and such. If you need it then I would be glad to help you develop filters on your wiki. Triplestop x3 17:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Ruslik said that, I disagreed =) –xeno^talk 17:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Quite a few of the more "general" filters are private, to my surprise - 72 or 82, for example, which are relatively basic things and don't rely on keywords or language-specific material. Added to that, being able to examine a big set of existing complicated filters - and private ones tend to be more complicated and special-caseish - is the sort of thing that helps immensely when trying to write your own ones. I can see real benefits to letting trusted people use our experience to help build their own systems - there's no reason to force them to re-invent the wheel every time they want to construct something complicated. And I think we can trust him :-) Shimgray | talk | 18:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec) A number of private filters might be useful at the very least for an initial setup, like for some random example Special:AbuseFilter/34.
I've briefly talked to Vito before when he ported easyblock and other scripts to tr-wiki, and I too would grant this request. Amalthea 18:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, there is no harm with him being able to see the filters, however I'm not quite sure if the same patterns of vandalism prevalent here are also widespread on other sites. Triplestop x3 18:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I can definitely see the value of it, even if the filters are en-specific. There are enough filters here to be good examples and "documentation through code." I agree, we should enable access. tedder (talk) 18:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I also agree that there are no trust issues, and that even if some of our specifics aren't useful, they demonstrate how to do certain things, and some of them may be relevant. Unless someone has a problem with granting them, I will in a little while (or someone else can). It's not really a big deal in my personal opinion. :) Ale_Jrb^talk 19:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

As usual, I oppose giving anyone access who doesn't intend to use the rights. How about just giving Vito Genovese the text of the filters... Would that not be easier? Prodego ^talk 19:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

What's the tangible problem with giving the rights in this case, Prodego? I see absolutely no reason not to help out a sister project in this way (so support giving him the permission). The editor is clearly a trusted user over there, and has pledged only to copy the filters. Sounds reasonable. ╟─TreasuryTag►Woolsack─╢ 19:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I oppose it because we have declined several other requests to 'copy filters'. You do not need our filters, you can write your own. There are more than enough public filters to get the idea of what we are doing, and enwiki had no filters to 'copy', so clearly there is no need to copy anything to get a working system. Prodego ^talk 19:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

But that's just creating needless difficulty. The whole point of Wikipedia is that it is open-source and champions the concept of free content – obviously, the human mind is capable of producing this from scratch because it has done in the past; but there's no point forcing it to when the material already exists. It's against the spirit of free content, and simply unfriendly, to demand a sister project to build up their anti-abuse arsenal from scratch. ╟─TreasuryTag►cabinet─╢ 20:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

He will indeed use the right, he simply won't edit the filters. Since we can't grant abusefilter-viewprivate separately, he is requesting EFM. And no, I don't think taking the time to cut and paste all the private filters and emailing them to him is easier than flipping a switch in the userrights screen. –xeno^talk 20:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

He does not need private filters, there are more than enough public ones. Private ones are private for a reason, if he is trusted enough on enwiki to see them, then this is the place to go. Prodego ^talk 20:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Where's the harm? –xeno^talk 20:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

You know what, just go ahead and do it, there will be no harm from his access. The only problem is if everyone decides they are unable to write filters themselves and everyone finds the public filters so inadequate that they need rights on enwiki that they will never use. I would not expect to be granted them with such a weak request on trwiki, or anywhere else, and would not do the same. Prodego ^talk 20:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

He's not just an admin, but a crat on another (magnitude 5) project. I think we can fly the AGF flag a little bit. And it's not like he's asking to copy our homework, there's no harm in letting them learn from our filters. –xeno^talk 20:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

That's great that trwiki trusts him as a crat. But it really has absolutely no weight here, because this isn't trwiki, this is enwiki. Prodego ^talk 20:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Which might be relevant if he were at WP:RFA. He's not. I must admit, I'm not quite sure what the actual problem is. Ale_Jrb^talk 21:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

"The only problem is if everyone decides they are unable to write filters themselves and everyone finds the public filters so inadequate that they need rights on enwiki that they will never use." - How, exactly, is that a problem? Heaven forbid that smaller projects want to have the same level of abuse prevention that we have. Saying that he shouldn't be allowed because we can't trust him is understandable (silly given the situation, but understandable), but saying that trwiki can't use our private filters, because then other projects would want them is like a little kid not willing to share his toys. If cluttering up the list of users with EFM is that much of a problem, he could just be granted it temporarily. Mr.Z-man 22:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Prodego, I feel I must echo Treasury's statement above. Wikipedia is not only open-source, it is one of the preeminent champions of open-source content. The filters are not private so as to protect our IP, they are private so as to prevent vandals from seeing them and altering their behaviour to suit. The notion that we would deny a sister project access to something that has been beneficial to us runs entirely counter to our core philosophy. There appears to be no reasonable chance of abuse in this instance, and it is our ethical duty to help out our sister projects. My !vote doesn't carry any weight here, but it's firmly in support of Vito. Throwaway85 (talk) 07:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. All rights should be easy-come-easy-go, and be granted whenever there is a need and no reason to distrust. EFM has grown to be a flag with a lower threshold than admin, so pointing to RfA is disingenuous and a total strawman. Being a crat on trwiki carries exactly as much weight as being a crat on enwiki: whatever weight you choose to give it. The only acceptable reasons to refuse EFM are a lack of trust that the confidentiality of private filters will be maintained, or a belief that they will not use any of the permissions granted with EFM. The latter is quite manifestly not true, as he will use the editfilter-viewprivate permission. The former is, IMO, quite ludicrous, but is a position you are entitled to take if you wish. Is that your intention? Happy‑melon 13:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I think we've reached a pretty clear consensus here, and I don't see much benefit to dragging this on, so I've gone ahead and granted the request. Ale_Jrb^talk 09:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you guys for the comments. The right will be used extensively, and will be of great benefit to tr.wiki. Again, on behalf of Turkish Wikipedia, thank you.

Vito Genovese 03:13, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem, hope the filters help! Throwaway85 (talk) 03:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I wished to request for permission to view filters; perhaps an EFM permission (abuse-filter private) to only 'view' filters. The permission would allow me to view and study current filters so that in the future, I may propose/create new filters post non-public discussions and post testing. But the future creation does not mean I need any right to edit currently. When (and if) I do need such a right, I would again request out here for an explicit permission. Warm regards, ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 19:09, 3 April 2010 (UTC) (As I'm out for the weekend, in case you have questions, I would be able to answer them from Tuesday morning onwards as I would be actively editing only from then. In between, if by chance any of you see me on the ACC Tool Server interface, do drop me a note and I'll rush back. Thanks and regards)

The best place to ask for this is WP:RFA. Ruslik_Zero 19:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ruslik. Stole a look here the moment I got time. I don't think RfA is the right place. The main page of the edit filter page says this > "Presently, requests for assignment of the "Edit Filter managers" group to non-admins should be made at Wikipedia talk:Edit filter, where a discussion will be held for up to a week prior to a decision being made". Do kindly guide me on how to proceed. If not tomorrow, will surely answer on Tuesday to any queries. Warm regards. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 18:01, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit filter permission is only for those who edit filters. If you want only to view rights you should apply for adminship as administrators have this right by default. (There is no way to grant it separately.) Ruslik_Zero 13:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

We have granted EFM in the past for "view-only" use, see Wikipedia talk:Edit filter/Archive 4#Request for permission. Disclosure: I closed the discussion. No comment on present case. –xeno^talk 13:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Umm, so did I make it? Rgds... ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 18:50, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

(Responding due to talkback template left on my talk page) While I hadn't planned to be the one to close this; I would have to say that unlike the request linked above, consensus has not been reached to grant you the EFM flag at this time. If there were trusted users to vouch for you, this decision could be revisited. There is also, of course, the above-suggested RFA venue which is far better trafficked than this page. –xeno^talk 16:35, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

As I've been away for a week, I hadn't seen this, but WifiOne asked me to pop over here! Before making comments, I would like to ask WifiOne to explain why he would want to view the current filters - I read what was written above, but I am still not sure of the need. If you can think of a new filter that you would like to propose, you could still propose it here, surely (or if it is something that you think shouldn't be discussed in a public arena, then you could always email a current edit filter user about it) -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Sure. The problem is that many edit filters currently are blocked from view. The permission I am seeking is only view rights and not edit rights. View rights would enable me to not invest my time in suggesting filters that are already available. For example, one particular area that I wish to work on is the NPP area where the tags currently being given to new articles could be improved. In a specific example, a particular newly created page that was created by a vandal was tagged 'large unwikified article' and not tagged as I presumed it should have been. That's only one case. There are others. It's clearly a much extra investment of time if the changes that I think a filter should have (or new filters that I might have in mind) already exist. Thus, the request for view rights rather than edit rights. Warm regards. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 09:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

(p.s: That particular vandal was blocked post my reporting him on aiv. I won't post details here but his username too escaped our filters. In the past, I did try my bit on working out how to stymie some types of persistent vandalism (a.A village pump proposal, b.the related RfC). Thus the request to view... ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣}

Adding a comment as I don't want this to be seen in any different way. Actually Xeno, who had granted the past view-only edit filter right, had done so then with the line, "the permission should allow him [the user] to assist in developing better filters. And if not, no harm done." So I had presumed that I would in the future able to add to the knowledge base that exists out here in various areas, especially vandalism reverting. In case the view-only right is granted, great. In case it is not, I still have no issues. I'll keep working on vandalism reverting through rollback. Thanks. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 11:01, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Wifione has asked me to comment on this request, but I do not have anything to add. Stifle (talk) 11:11, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Ditto Stifle. Stwalkerster [ talk ] 13:21, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Wifione has asked me to comment on this request, and i have something to say. From the archive that Xeno linked above i see no consistency is reviewing requests for permission. Those who wish to review what is already in place so that they might avoid creating duplications seem to be among the more scrutinised. Some people are given a quiz while others get a {{done}} pretty much just for asking. Considering the issues raised in that archive page about admins just giving themselves the right it seems odd to suggest going through RfA because as is also mentioned, anyone submitting an RfA simply for filter access will surely fail the RfA. That being said i don't believe Wifione has any malicious intent behind making this request, though i may be the wrong character witness as i have nothing to do with abuse filters, though one called me a "tireless sock" last year. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 20:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

If someone is an administrator, they can add it to themselves. If not, and they clearly are very capable of using the filters, they will probably get added by someone (e.g. User:Shirik). Personally I don't agree with giving the AFE rights to just view private filters, but consensus seems to be if someone is working in an area where they repeatedly encounter situations where having access to the private filters would be helpful, they may be added by an admin as well (e.g. User:Chzz). None of these things seem to be what Wifione is saying he needs AFE for. If you need to "view and study current filters" the majority of them are not private, and already visible. Prodego ^talk 20:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually Prodego, this was the statement Chzz gave on the basis of which the edit filter 'view only' permission request was filed. "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". I believed that the edit-filter view only permission was in the first place created to help trusted editors view all existing filters (including blocked) and suggest changes to existing filters and creation of new filters (areas where I intend contributing). ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 02:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

In any case, you will probably note I extensively disagreed with that, and Chzz commonly needed to use the filter for help requests or something similar, I don't recall exactly. Prodego ^talk 02:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that. Chzz had got the view-only right but you had disagreed with the reason... I think the factor that was considered finally was not whether the user wishes to really use the edit filters finally (the user can't anyway with view-only rights) but whether the user is trustworthy or untrustworthy. I do realise that having the account creator, autoreviewer and rollback statuses are no guarantees of my trustworthiness, but I do hope that the request is not considered in bad faith. Warm regards. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 03:55, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the issue here Wifone is simply that there is no need for you to have it. If you wish to learn about the filters there is plenty you can do without having the right, perhaps if you did what you say you're intending to do for a while for the filters you can view - most of them, and show that you could be helpful, then people would be more open to giving you the right. As it is right now, you just come across as wanting another hat. No offence intended--Jac16888^Talk 03:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

No offence taken Jac. That's why I think Chzz's archive was shown by Xeno to describe the simplistic process through which Chzz got the edit filter 'view only' right. In my personal opinion, if trying to view blocked filters is viewed by you as 'an attempt to gain another hat', I would be more than pleased to not be given that 'hat' yet have the permission to view the filters. Look, all of us are on the same side - I (and you hopefully) do fight vandalism whenever we get time as volunteers. I linked my past RfC, Village pump proposal, on anti-vandalism for a better idea to editors about how I have tried to 'be helpful'. If you wish more such links to how I have tried to be helpful, I would be more than pleased to link them up out here or on your talk page. Warm regards. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 04:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I meant helpful as in helpful specifically towards the edit filter system. Saying you want the ability because you intend to start working in the area seems to come across in the same way as those editors who ask for the acc right because they're going to start creating accounts despite never having done so before or the new user who wants rollback after 12 edits --Jac16888^Talk 04:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes surely. Sorry if I'm sounding as being critical. The guidelines are generally met with quite strictly when normal editors apply. When the overseeing admin believes the requesting user is a good editor, the guideline may be overlooked. In my case, I got the AWB permission much before the minimum edit count was reached, the autoreviewer right much before the minimum pages for recommendation were reached, the ACC access without having ever created a single account. At least in the last case, guidelines were followed to the tee I presume (Wikipedia:Request_an_account/Guide#Registering_for_use). (I would also suggest the creation of a separate guideline page for telling future requesting editors the procedure to follow and requirements to be specifically met before applying for the view-only permission. This would go a long way in avoiding future confusion). So my basic premise rests on the fact that if the edit filter 'view only' option has been given in the past case with and without certain requirements (please do go through this once), then it should perhaps be a similar criteria for analysing my request. Thanks and regards. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 06:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

So you say strict guidelines should be applied to "normal editors", but for "good editor[s]" there need be none. What exactly makes an editor 'good' as opposed to 'normal'? Prodego ^talk 14:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Prodego. Good editor... Ok, let me give it a shot - one who doesn't pettifog and turn a blind eye to various admins telling the same thing over and over again? :) Don't worry, I've understood :) ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 18:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey there, I am here to ask for permission to view and change edit filters. I have been active for 8 months now, and have focused mainly on the technical side of wikipedia. I am a member of the Bot approvals group, and active at WP:DBR and WP:DDR. I am well versed in python and regular expression, and will be responsible enough not to break anything too important. Thanks, Tim1357 (talk) 23:35, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I've seen your work before, and I think it would be great to have your technical skills helping us out. —Soap— 00:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I've seen Tim's work and think he would be a good candidate to have access. MBisanz ^talk 01:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Prodego ^talk 03:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree with the sentiments above. One of the great things Tim has done for us is quickly code a bot that allows us to track filters; he shows the technical competence for the bit, and I have no reason to think he can't be trusted with the tool. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 15:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Per the consensus above, I have granted access to Tim1357. Cenarium (talk) 17:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I was also wondering if I could get abusefilter rights here and help out with this part of the project. Thanks, Tommy2010 14:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I think we need all the help we can get, however if approved I would urge you not to make big changes without consensus. About a week ago I remember you saying that a certain filter shouldn't trigger if the user is autoconfirmed; perhaps that filter really does need to be changed, but I want to be sure that you'd be weighing costs and benefits before making a change like that. —Soap— 16:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes that was just an idea and would not make a big change without a discussion Tommy2010 17:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The abuse filter is a powerful and dangerous tool. It has, on several occasions, blocked all editing from editors... and worse. May I ask what qualifications you have that suggest that you can be trusted with this tool? --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 02:37, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for the late reply. After your comments, I will withdrawal my request. I'd rather gain more experience than risk making mistakes. However, you can expect me to participate more in this area of the project as I primarily deal with vandalism. Thanks, Tommy2010 15:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

My statement wasn't an effort to get you to back down, however it wasn't a lie either – the abuse filter really is a dangerous tool, and that is why even admins don't, by default, have the capability to edit filters (though they can give themselves the right if they choose to). My suggestion if you aren't confident of your abilities right now is to look over the non-private filters we already have in place and perhaps try out the abusefilter on an installation of your own first. That will give you some experience into how to develop filters and just the kind of power it has. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 15:25, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The AbuseFilter has safeguards built in to prevent precisely the situation -- a filter blocking all edits -- that you claim has happened. Can you point to a specific example? And what can this installation do which is "worse" than blocking all edits? Again, can you point to examples of where this has happened? I agree that the filter is a powerful feature which needs a great deal of respect, but I don't think this level of hyperbole is useful. Happy‑melon 16:04, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Shirik is probably right here, my only experience is that I love using huggle, although lately I have been checking the edit filter log for vandalism and warning them based on that. I assumed that one needs abusefilter rights in order to write a filter. Tommy2010 16:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I think what Shirik is saying that it has blocked all edits in the past, before the fix was added in. And I believe that even now, that fix only triggers after a hyperactive filter has been running for several minutes, so if it really was blocking 100% of the edits coming in, even for just a few minutes, that would be quite a lot of edits (probably in the hundreds). —Soap— 16:28, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The abusefilter has blocked all edits before, (and still can). It can only do it until 5% of its current 'sample' (a few thousand edits) trip the filter. So that could be a few hundred edits blocked before the filter switches off. Prodego ^talk 16:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Echoing what Prodego said, generally this is detected within minutes of the problem, so I've seen cases where we've reacted faster than the filter did. I'd rather not point to any particular instance as we'd all like to forget it ever happened, but suffice to say I've seen it happen. And there have been cases worse than blocking all edits – one case actually removed "autoconfirmed" status from all that made an edit. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 20:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I have a bit of experience with regex and I know how edit filters work here. I'm looking to improve and shore up false positives. Also I'm on vandalism patrol at times and notice how things could be improved. Let me know if I could help out here. --Sidonuke (talk :: contribs) 13:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

No objections here; I've worked with Sidonuke in other parts of the project; but I can't speak to qualifications. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 02:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. In terms of qualifications. I have nothing to show to be honest but if you are all willing, I'll be grateful to show you that I'm capable. Sidonuke 09:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

If no one else disagrees. Could permissions be granted? Sidonuke 10:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Can you say something about this. While it happened more than three years ago, it still worries me. Ruslik_Zero 11:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I was acting like a little kid back then not knowing what I was doing. I could of made a new account to hide my past but I decided against it because it was a mistake and I wanted to show that I have changed since then. Sidonuke 13:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Special:AbuseFilter/332 is a filter I helped Jéské_Couriano create. It's a simple one. Sidonuke 06:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I wish to make a comment. I did not know abuselogs could NOT be OSed. Sidonuke 06:52, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that back in November, and I've been told the developers are working on it. See here (the same page I was linked to when I asked about it). —Soap— 22:29, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Seems like its been ignored. Sidonuke 14:45, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I would like to join the Edit filter manager group. I like coding, I'm good at it, that's a big plus for joining the group. I've been studying this, so I'm becoming familiar with the system.

Why do you want to be in the edit filter manager group, you ask? Well, I think it'd be fun, since it involves coding, and a great experience!

I think it'd just be a great thing to do for Wikipedia, and it'd be excellent for my Wiki-mission of making this a better place! Ask any questions to me, if you need to! Thanks! Endofskull (talk) 00:35, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• Besides that it is 'fun' (which it not always is .. though, it may give you some abuse from editors who are being blocked), what do you expect to do with the edit filter? Can you give any specific examples where you think that you could use the edit filter on? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'd definitely take the requests into consideration. But, I'd make some new ones such as one that checks for Youtube links. That could be useful at points. Endofskull (talk) 17:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

That would be too heavy on the edit filter (it has already been tried). Youtube is caught by m:LiWa3 and User:XLinkBot. All how much I would like the edit filter to do it .. unfortunately that is not possible. But I was more interested in some vandalism (e.g.) that you ran into in the past for which you think that the editfilter would be a perfect solution. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I see. Alright. So, something I would make might be an edit filter that checks their blocks, and if they have like over 3 then it'll tag it. The same thing for IPs, but it puts that it's from an IP. Endofskull (talk) 22:21, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Endofskull, what I see you suggesting isn't what the edit filter was designed for. For example, last night, we had a blackout attack, which (after some work) Prodego was able to block with the EF. You're new, and you're not ready for the permissions you are seeking. You can apply once you gain more experience. ANowlin ^talk 16:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Anowlin, what are you other concerns other than that I don't have enough experience? Or is that your only concern? As of right now, I have 1,046 edits. You have roughly 2,700. So I have around 1/3 of what you have. Just that fact might be helpful as of how much experience I have. Thanks! Endofskull (talk) 12:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Endofskull, experience it determined by much more than edit count. Anowlin doesn't have the right you are seeking either, and indeed, I have 12,000+ edits and I don't have the right. It's simply not related. The Edit Filter is a powerful tool and could cause a lot of damage if not configured properly. It's not even something administrators get by default! So, you really need to demonstrate how think you can help. ^Avic_ennasis @ 16:28, 10 Elul 5770 / 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I understand. The thing that I'd do that's very helpful would be patrolling requested edit filters. Would that be pretty helpful? Oh yeah, do you want me to write a code for a filter to show that I know how to? Thanks! Endofskull (talk) 16:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Endofskull, I think it would be best for you take the advise given here, hang up the canvassing campaign and move on. Mlpearc powwow 17:20, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I think I get a chance to try. Why don't you just ask me questions and I'll reply? :) Endofskull (talk) 18:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I have none to ask. Mlpearc powwow 21:05, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, then what are you concerns? Endofskull (talk) 21:20, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

This and the other notices on your user page that indicate that you should gain more experience before requesting advanced permissions. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. Netalarm^talk 22:24, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but this doesn't involve editing pages, blocking people, or anything like that. It's pure coding. If you want me to prove that I can code an edit filter, feel free to ask me to make a code. (I just don't wanna make a code, and then no one even pay attention to it.) Endofskull (talk) 23:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

That statement really shows you don't understand the edit filter at all. it has everything to do with edits. Furthermore, the edit filter has options like "Remove the user from all privileged groups" and " Block the user and/or IP address from editing", so it's very serious. You could make a filter that accidentally has a high false positive rate and end up blocking half the editors before someone corrected it. The damage could be very high. If you want to program, there are several at WP:TOOLS that could use a hand. ^Avic_ennasis @ 02:41, 11 Elul 5770 / 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Endofskull, Please quit. Do not post any further messages to my talk page regarding this matter. I have made my comments and have no further interest in your "Quest for Flags". any further posting to my talk page regarding this will constitute vandalism and will be treated as such. Mlpearc powwow 15:24, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Mlpearc, telling somebody to quit doesn't help at all, unless your main goal on this encyclopedia is to scare away newer users. If there is consensus to mark this as not done, do so, but don't be so bitey.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 18:26, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Mlpearc, I'm sorry, but you can never destroy my attitude about this. If it takes me years to finally join the Edit filter manager group, I'll still keep positive and be happy. (Actually in somewhat reply to "hang up the canvassing campaign and move on", and your most recent reply) And I agree with Gordonrox24. Thanks Endofskull (talk) 18:31, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

A positive attitude and time to gain the appropriate experience is key.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 18:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Gordon! Endofskull (talk) 19:28, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Can I get some more comments, please? Endofskull (talk) 17:07, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

•  Not done There does not appear to be consensus to grant the userright at this time. It would be best to gain more experience and knowledge of edit filters and their appropriate use before re-applying. Responding to requests for filters, commenting on their propriety, sandboxing code, determining the reasons for false positives and suggesting how to fix, etc., would help demonstrate that you can be trusted to make good use of the edit filter manager userright. –xeno^talk 01:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks so much Xeno. I'll be doing that! :) Endofskull (talk) 22:32, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I've been cleaning up and revamping the long-term abuse project to make it easier to understand, easier to file new reports, and easier to find the entry that someone is looking for. The main organization is mostly done, all that's left it to check over some of the reports, update them, and link more information to them. As edit filters are used extensively to prevent the most serious abuse, I believe it would be of great benefit to me as I continue to update long-term abuse and maintain the reports. I'm not really planning on editing the filters, so if I have a request, I'll most likely email one of you to check over it and add it. What I plan to do:

• Look over private filters of the long-term abusive users and make sure they are up to date with the latest targeted articles and behaviors listed at long-term abuse.
• Request an update of the filter if I determine that there are new targeted users or articles that could be used to identify the abusive user.
• Generally make sure the two (EF and LTA) are in sync with each other. Of course, I won't publish private filter information.

Note: The filters for most of the abusive users are private, hence my request. Netalarm^talk 23:38, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Support I know this isn't a "consensus" thing, but Netalarm has done some hard work with this project, and it would only be more beneficial to the project if he could 1) view the non-public edit filters, and 2) be able to enable edit filters based on reports at LTA. ANowlin ^talk 04:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Support - looks reasonable to me. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Support - Agree with Anowlin this would be a great benefit for LTA and AR, and no better User to have this bit. Mlpearc powwow 16:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

•  Done - Permission enabled. Please be sure to interface with edit filter managers who've more experience if you plan to do more than just viewing. –xeno^talk 15:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Definitely. Netalarm^talk 20:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Prodego ^talk 14:06, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey everyone! I would like to be assigned edit filter manager group, since I have a bit of programming experience, and I am quite good with regular expressions and such. I operate a few bots here on Wikipedia (DodoBot, MessageDeliveryBot, WelcomerBot) as well as one on Commons, and have also been nominated for the BAG. I would like to keep an eye on Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested and help out whenever I can. Thanks! - EdoDodo ^talk 13:49, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• I know of no reasons to decline this request. The user is a capable programmer, bot operator, trusted user and toolserver account holder who would be a helpful addition to the EFM team. –xeno^talk 01:14, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support - This editor has shown clue in these areas, no problem here. Mlpearc powwow 14:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support Seems like a good person for this. Endofskull (talk) 00:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Possibly, a bit less active here then I'd like. I'll look into it more later. Prodego ^talk 06:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support—I'd be comfortable with him having access, as he has demonstrated knowledge in this area. Airplaneman ✈ 16:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd really prefer EdoDodo go through RfA here - abuse filters are admin level access, they let you block edits, and it isn't blatently obvious EdoDodo would pass at this point (though it seems plausible). AFE isn't supposed to be a stepping stone here. Prodego ^talk 04:39, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I understand what you mean, although I will point out that a number of non-admins have been approved in the past (Chzz, Netalarm, Tim1357 and several more are non-admin edit filter managers right now). Also this is really just a technical user right, which is suitable for someone like me who is involved mainly in bot creation, while adminship is (or rather, seems to be) a lot more than that. While I would be happy to go through RFA if I get nominated, I have my doubts as to whether it would pass, mainly because of my lack of article work. - EdoDodo ^talk 12:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

And there are at least three who were granted edit filter permission before their RfA, and are admins today. —Soap— 20:56, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

• Any updates on this? Is it {{not done}} or just needs some more discussion? - EdoDodo ^talk 13:07, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

  Some of the early permissions requests took more than a month, so I wouldn't get pessimistic. Besides it looks like the consensus is in your favor so far. (I'm not registering an opinion because I don't know you very well). —Soap— 20:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

  Ah, okay, didn't know they could take so long. - EdoDodo ^talk 21:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone have any further questions or comments? This thread has been here for almost a month. I see four support !votes (Xeno, Mlpearc, Endofskull, Airplaneman) and one objection (Prodego), which is within the level of consensus we've (informally) applied up to now, though I think we should make sure there are no further objections. —Soap— 17:14, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

If there are no further objections, I agree that there is consensus to grant the right. Prodego's objection seems to be more of a systemic objection than one pertaining to the candidate. Since the original request, EdoDodo has become a member of the Bot Approvals Group and continues to hold a high level of trust. Suggesting they apply for adminship rather than simply granting the right seems counterintuitive: if they don't want/need the admin tools, why force them to endure the grueling process that is RFA just so they can help with edit filters? –xeno^talk 17:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you for support your everyone. Since this has been open for nearly a month, I've left a message on WP:AN so an uninvolved administrator can take a look at it and, hopefully, close it. - EdoDodo ^talk 14:53, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Y I'm closing this as consensus being reached to grant the right. Remember to take it very slowly and that any admin can remove the flag at any time if they feel it is necessary. I'll twiddle the bit in a second. Courcelles 15:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks! - EdoDodo ^talk 15:08, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

As an experienced user, I would like to implement some new filters to prevent abuse, taking into account the abusive edits I see regularly though my goggles. I have a handful of ideas, and would also like to implement some of the requests.  1year  03:13, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Could you outline your qualifications with respect to regex? What would be the first filter you would implement? Please provide a mockup of the conditions that would be used in the filter. –xeno^talk 15:20, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

You seem to have recently semi-retired from Wikipedia; should we withdraw your request? —Soap— 01:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Youve now changed your user page to "Mono will be focusing on writing, and writing only. Thank you." and so Im guessing youre no longer interested. —Soap— 16:38, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry... My position keeps changing, however, I'm still interested. As far as experience goes, I can't say I have a 'background' of any kind; I understand most of the basics, though. Most likely, I'd work on more basic filters at first and model after more complex filters.  ℳono  03:37, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone have any further comments? This thread has been here for close to a month. —Soap— 17:13, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

There doesn't appear to be consensus to grant the userright at this time. I would suggest the OP gain more experience and knowledge of edit filters and their appropriate use before re-applying. Responding to requests for filters, commenting on their propriety, sandboxing code, determining the reasons for false positives and suggesting how to fix, etc., would help demonstrate that they can be trusted to make good use of the edit filter manager userright. –xeno^talk 17:17, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I request edit filter manager permission primarily to assist in further development of my proposal related to Pending Changes. There is some further discussion on Jimbo's talk page, but that will get archived soon. I would like to see the details of the private filters to get a better idea of how well the edit filter is working today. In the future, if some version of my proposal is accepted, I may wish to assist with the implementation. I don't plan on making any changes to the filter set for now, but I am well qualified to do so. I've been using various flavors of Unix and regex for eons. I also have professional programming experience, including modifying complex operational systems on-the-fly, so I understand the process of testing and making absolutely sure not to break something so delicate. Thanks. —UncleDouggie (talk) 02:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello, trying to not get archived here. Is this the right place to be making requests? —UncleDouggie (talk) 08:24, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes UncleDouggie, the right place. Beyond that, if any current administrator, abusefilter manager or editor is interested in supporting your candidature, they should/would comment on their own. Sincerely. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 16:16, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, quite the different process from RfA I see. Several editors and admins have supported my proposal, including even Jimbo, but they probably don't watch this page. Is it permitted for me to contact them, or would that be considered canvassing? It's not clear that this is really a "community discussion" to which the guideline would apply. I guess some rules would be nice. —UncleDouggie (talk) 17:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• Not too familiar with editor, but the request and rationale seem reasonable enough. –xeno^talk 17:18, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
• How will you be furthering development of your proposal? The proposal itself wouldn't be able to replace per page Pending Changes - the abusefilter would cause far too big of a performance hit with such complex regexes, and much vandalism is a per page affair. However, the ability to have the abusefilter cause an edit to require review would be helpful - but we must then be careful about unwatched pages. Prodego ^talk 17:20, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

  I need to conduct a more in-depth analysis of the abusefilter, which requires that I be able to see the private filters. I may also sandbox some possible changes and additions. The best vandalism solution is likely to be an integrated solution of the abusefilter with bots that implement the more complex analysis methods currently under development. The ability of the abusefilter to instantly deny an edit today plays an integral role in analyzing the vandal workflow, which means that my proposal is unlikely to succeed by taking a bots only view of the problem. Unwatched pages can be handled today using Special:OldReviewedPages to see edits that reviewers missed on their watchlists, as well as for pages with no watchers.—UncleDouggie (talk) 17:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

  "analyzing the vandal workflow?" ...please. Which pet guideline are you trying to get a filter to enforce? Gurch (talk) 22:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

  I assure you that I have no such intention, as a review of my edit history should make clear. —UncleDouggie (talk) 06:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

  Before an edit has been made, the abusefilter has an instant to analyze it. Rules cannot be overly complex, and the private filters tend to have the most simple and least informative rules of any filters (which is why they are hidden). Special:OldReviewedPages isn't accessible to the AbuseFilter at the moment, and bots will never be able to interact with the filters because they do not have the edit data until after the filter approves or denies the edit. Bots are important for analyzing edits, but there isn't a terribly large amount of overlap in what they do and what the filters can. Prodego ^talk 02:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

  I realize that the abusefilter and bots don't have much overlap in functionality, which is why I have proposed having both be capable of marking an edit as requiring review. They still need to be analyzed together to design effective vandalism deterrents. I don't believe that the abusefilter will need access to Special:OldReviewedPages. —UncleDouggie (talk) 06:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

• I see no issues in granting UncleDouggie abusefilter rights. If there are any other editors/administrators with a clear opposition to this, kindly do mention the same. If not, I'd propose UncleDouggie be granted the rights. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 03:03, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

• I'd be happier if he could clarify what it is he intends to do, I didn't quite understand that. Prodego ^talk 21:06, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Is my introductory statement unclear in some way, or are you looking for more details on a specific item? —UncleDouggie (talk) 00:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello. I'd like to request the edit filter flag. I'm a professional programmer and I'm quite handy with regular expressions. I'd like to help shore up vulnerabilities and optimize filters, and I promise not to break anything. 28bytes (talk) 21:32, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Quick, easy question:

Does da-da-delllletionist! match d+b?[E3e][l1]+eti[o0]n(m[Aa][Nn]|[i1]+[Ss5]+t)

Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Unless my eyes deceive me, yes it does. It also would even without the "da-da-" and the exclamation mark at the end. 28bytes (talk) 22:17, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Heh. Well, you technically could be cheating by using a regex tester but even if you were, I wouldn't consider that a reason to oppose, particularly considering that the filter managers are encouraged to check their work before they make even a minor change (lest a small typo, such as || instead of |, be interpreted as blocking " " and therefore nearly every edit). So, in summary, no objection from me to granting you the edit filter access. —Soap— 23:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Soap. 28bytes (talk) 23:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll support you. I just thought it would be a good idea to check if you have a basic knowledge of regex because a mistake can cause every user who edits to be removed from 'autoconfirmed' status. Reaper Eternal (talk) 23:44, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, checking is a very good idea. :) 28bytes (talk) 23:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

So ... any more comments, questions, or objections? —Soap— 13:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

• I see no objections; so assigning the permission. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 18:16, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks all! 28bytes (talk) 19:06, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

 – HJ Mitchell removed the privilege. Reaper Eternal (talk) 23:03, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi there! I requested this right some months ago when we enabled the abuse-filter feature on simpleWP. I needed it only to get an idea of what we could need there. However, I have only used it the first weeks and haven't used it in ages, so I don't need it anymore. (Also, I am a steward now and can see the filters anyway if needed). Please remove the right from my account for this reason. Thanks again for granting it to me in first case and giving me the chance to view the filters. Kindly, -Barras ^talk 20:15, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:19, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! -Barras ^talk 20:24, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

 – No. Prodego ^talk 05:53, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I am familiar with the policies and guidelines laid out at Wikipedia:Edit filter. I will not be very active in editing abusefilters but I will be fairly active in commenting on them. Jessy ^(SCG01) 22:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

How are your regular expression skills? 28bytes (talk) 22:49, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean by that? Because I am lost. Jessy ^(SCG01) 22:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah. In that case you don't need the flag. But that's OK, you're more than welcome to comment on the filters without it. 28bytes (talk) 23:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I may not be very familiar with the technical aspects of being an AbuseFilter but I am a very trusted user and I have read the WP:FILTER page on numerous occasions. I will not misuse the right. If an admin could give me a solid chance. Jessy ^(SCG01) 23:21, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Being a trusted user is great, but familiarity with the syntax used by the filters is a prerequisite, I'm afraid. 28bytes (talk) 23:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

If I get granted this userright I will refrain from making major edits to filters with out having consensus from other users who are more familiar with this right. Jessy ^(SCG01) 00:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

SunCountryGuy01, please listen to me. You do not need every userright out there. Starting at the beginning of this month, I count 12 userright requests on your part. More rights ≠ higher status in the community. These are not trophies and you should not treat them as such. Begging will not get you anywhere either. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't take much of an edit to cause MASSIVE disruption. For example, a "repeating characters" filter, added_lines rlike (\w)\1{2,} . Changing this to added_lines rlike (\w)\1{1,} suddenly matches all words like "apple", "eel", "babble", "popping", and "rapping". All it takes is one mistaken character to screw up everything. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:53, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Not needed. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:27, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I am always baffled by abuse filter triggering, and would like to know what exactly was triggering the filters. Allowing me to view existing filters allows me to also suggest new filters.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Most of the edit filters can be viewed without any special permission. So go ahead and learn up; you don't need any permission for that. Thanks. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 11:50, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

So...any objections to me marking this as "Resolved: Not needed."? Reaper Eternal (talk) 23:07, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

No :) Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 02:13, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Withdrawn. MacMed^talk_stalk 00:21, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I made a note below about a possible filter for testing. I'm interested in creating this as log only to see what it hits. I would also like access to the batch testing tool and the creation tool for future filters (I would watchlist WP:AF/R as well). I would stay away from established filters and post any potentially controversial changes on here before editing. Thanks for your consideration. Regards, MacMed^talk_stalk 03:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Bump I'm just wondering if the silence is good (no objections) or if no one noticed :p I realize the my suggested filter would be more appropriate for a bot, but I was looking at a couple of entries on AF/R I would like to take a stab at, even if it's just with the batch tool before posting code here if that is what the EFM community would prefer. Regards, MacMed^talk_stalk 00:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

This is going to sound hostile and I apologize. But I have to oppose. You've really only been here for a month or so since your wikibreak, so there isn't much edit history for me to base a judgment on. As you mention above, three days ago you endorsed a request for a filter that will prevent users from adding links to Example.jpg, regardless of what other content is in the edit, and will not tag any other type of test edit besides the example.jpg image. Then today you said a bot might be better suited to it, but went on to oppose a bot task that would do just that, and without some of the drawbacks of the edit filter option. Has your opinion changed or am I just not understanding something? I also notice you removed a comment I wrote on that page and didn't come back to fix it. I understand the MediaWiki software has been having some lag issues lately, but it is good to make sure everything you write is what you intend it to be. (I am not claiming I'm above making mistakes, in fact I double check everything I do because I know that if I don't I'll make mistakes and get complaints).

Regarding WP:AF/R, my personal observation is that the page has plenty of watchers, but it looks perpetually backlogged because most of the requested filters are bad ideas. When a good idea for a filter is proposed it tends to be created very quickly.

Again, I know it may look like I'm trying to cast you in the worst possible light, but that's not my intention. I know that you're not just chasing after userrights (anyone who does gives up pretty quickly) and I don't want to keep you from getting the tools you need to work productively here, but for the reasons above (little recent activity and questionable judgment in what there is) I am not comfortable with giving edit filter access to your account at this time. —Soap— 22:39, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

No that doesn't sound hostile, it's perfectly fair. And in response to some of your points: a) The example.jpg filter was (as far as I saw) meant to be a tagging filter. I meant to include that in my comment on AF/R but must have forgotten. b) As for the bot, I agreed with the elimination of pure test edits, but opposed the blocking in complicated situations purely because I'm not sure I trust a bot to interpret that kind of situation correctly, and as I said above I thought it was tag-only. And c) I did get an edit conflict when I tried to comment on the VP, but I didn't certainly didn't remove anything from the upper box of the edit conflict screen. I am not trying to say "Oh, but I want it, gimme gimme!" I just want to help you understand my reasoning in the situations above. I am grateful for your honesty :) Regards, MacMed^talk_stalk 00:08, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I had a feeling I was missing something important. I see now that your opinion makes sense, though I still would like to see more time actively editing before I can offer an opinion about granting edit filter access. —Soap— 00:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Of course. Thank you for your input :) Regards, MacMed^talk_stalk 00:21, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

 Not done Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message}

The "Edit filter" tool would grant me the privilege to extend my continual work in anti-vandalism, and mould in with the existing work using Rollback in Huggle, and my reviewing on Pending Changes to increase the capacity utilisation of my edits - improving faster identification, analysis, and removal per WP:Vand. The edit filter would give me a transparent and accountable means to retrieve destructive edits using the criteria of user specifics and patterns, combined with title examination.

The setting of an abuse filter will be done with exceeding care, checking and double-checking against relevant impacts of the Wikipedia community, and using consequential weighting techniques to create a filter that will prevent abuse, but will not prevent good faith edits. Wikipedian2 (talk) 21:16, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Transcluding the entire WP:Vand page in your request was not an encouraging sign. Without looking any further I'd have to say you don't appear sufficiently careful enough to be trusted with this flag. 28bytes (talk) 21:24, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

That's a use of shift I won't be doing again! Wikipedian2 (talk) 21:31, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

How good is your knowledge of regular expressions? Reaper Eternal (talk) 22:57, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Regular expressions (or regex) is the computerised matching and pairing of a string of words (or characters) against a given variable. A randomised basic example could be the phrase variable 'asd', the word 'asd' could then be compared by the parser in a variety of contexts, including "sdjasd", "purple asd", or "asd" on it's own. If you would like me to go into more detail, please feel free to ask. Wikipedian2 (talk) 23:22, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment You don't really have enough edit history for me to base an opinion on, since you've only been actively editing for about two weeks. I have to default to oppose, though, as with MacMed above. If this request doesn't get consensus, I would keep it in mind and try to work on edit-filter-related things for a few months and then we would better be able to see how edit filter access would help you. —Soap— 00:14, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Not now Wikipedian2. Prodego ^talk 00:21, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

 Done by Prodego. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message}

Hello, I would like to request the 'abusefilter' privilege to help working against vandalism. I would mainly use it for the edit filters used to disallow the blatant talk page attacks—commonly by banned users—that show up every now and then. I would also use the ones for detecting the prolific sockpuppetteers, as I commonly see groups of puppets when Huggling. I have been editing for around 6 months. My knowledge of regex comes entirely from teaching myself for the purpose of creating ReapETbot (talk · contribs). Thanks all! Reaper Eternal (talk) 03:11, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I see no issues that would make me oppose, though I have to admit it's not easy to page through 25000 edits of mostly Huggle so I just looked at your talk page archives. I've seen your bot at work on the IRC network and have always been impressed with it. —Soap— 21:15, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

From what I've seen of Reaper Eternal, he's knowledgeable and cautious. I trust him not to break anything. 28bytes (talk) 00:08, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Reaper Eternal, you are a very clueful candidate for EFM however I am just asking if you could possibly give us a little more insight into regex such as its meaning and how it works. mauchoeagle 00:14, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The word "regex" is a shortened form of "regular expression". It is a method of finding patterns in strings. I won't go into a full dissertation on how regular expressions work, as that would take up an enormous amount of space. The [ ] operators delineate a set of characters, any of which may match the target string. However, appending a ^ to the front of the characters (e.g. "[^fsag]") matches all characters not in that charset. (Ex. "d[ou]g" matches "dog" or "dug".) The | is an or operator, and the target string can match either of the strings it separates. (Ex. "cat|dog" matches "cat".) The ( ) operators are used just as they are in arithmetic—to group elements. (Ex. "pine(apple|nut)" matches "pineapple" and "pinenut".) The { } operators indicate number of elements to match. (Ex. "(the){3}" matches "thethethe".) The \b is used for word boundaries, the \w is any alphanumeric character, \d is any digit, \D is any nondigit, \s and \S are whitespace and nonwhitespace respectively, \n is a newline, \r is a carriage return, \x## (where ## are two hex chars) matches that explicit ASCII character.... There is far more that I have not even mentioned. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:18, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Wow, I am studying computing and that is the definition my professor would give me. Impressive enough for me to most definitely Support. mauchoeagle 01:26, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

• I don't normally comment on these, but I'll make an exception, here. Any admin closing this should bear in mind that I retain the EFM bit for the passive benefits only and have no idea what I'm doing with filters and weight my comments appropriately. Reaper Eternal is someone I know fairly well. We've collaborated on a few tasks and had a few shared interactions. More importantly, though, I've seen the work he puts into writing, reviewing and his excellent vandal fighting. He seems to have picked up a good knowledge of how filters work and has his fair share of experience dealing with the kind of crap they're meant to combat, so I think he'd do a grand job with the EFM bit. Just in case it's not obvious, I'm supporting! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:16, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the vote of confidence. :) Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi!

I'm a admin, restricted to stuff concerning link spamming, especially WP:SBL.

I'd like to use the permission in order to amend some WP:SBL-tasks. -- seth (talk) 20:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

No objections from me. I don't see any complaints about or reverts of your changes to the MediaWiki namespace; you obviously know what you're doing with regular expressions. 28bytes (talk) 21:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Done, feel free to use EFM with no restriction to SBL. Prodego ^talk 21:41, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

thx! -- seth (talk) 19:04, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I've been learning regex for awhile now, I've got a high enough competency level to understand the filters and will avoid making changes that might break Wikipedia and will always defer to more experienced EFMs. I'd like to take a stab at managing the filters. I'd be happy to answer any questions in relation to regex or current filters. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 7:08pm • 09:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

 Not done. There is no visible support to your request. Therefore, marking as not done. Thanks and best. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 00:18, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

 Not done 28bytes (talk) 20:09, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I would like to request the EFM privilege to help protect Wikipedia against vandalism. I've been learning regular expressions for awhile now. I have used them in many small Python scripts, and I think I now have a competency level which is high enough to understand the filters and create new ones. I am familiar with the base regular expression system and also more complex features like lookaheads and lookbehinds. Additionally, I've created some edit filters on my own testing wiki, to test my understanding of the edit filter syntax. I'd be happy to answer any questions in regards to regular expressions or edit filter syntax, should anybody want to evaluate my abilities. — Waterfox ^~talk~ 22:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Questions

Questions from Gryllida 06:12, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

•  Question: How often do you expect the filters need to be edited?

  I will edit the filters on a regular basis, not just occasionally, in these situations:

  • To try out new filters of my own creation, in which case I'll have tried them out at the Test Wikipedia and/or my personal test wiki first. After they're thoroughly tested, I would install them on Wikipedia, starting by only logging hits, and then reviewing with other EFMs before applying any restrictions.
  • To fill requests on WP:EF/R. In these cases, I'll either modify existing filters or create a new one, following the usual procedure as described above.
  • To improve upon existing filters. In these cases, I'll be extremely cautious and will test elsewhere first. When in doubt, I'll either refer to another EFM or create a duplicate filter with logging enabled only, to test my own changes (or both).
    

  — Waterfox ^~talk~ 14:53, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

•  Question: Why do you think there is a need in new people with this permission?

  It is of my concern that there are only a few EFMs who are actually active on the talk page and at WP:EF/R. The posts on the talk page seem to be replied to within 48 hours by a EFM, usually, but the requests for edit filters sometimes get backlogged. Also, like always, I think that redundancy is good, so why not? — Waterfox ^~talk~ 14:53, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

•  Question: What examples can you provide to show your regexp knowledge?
  • Here is a non-exhaustive description of what a regex is:
    • The term "regex" (sometimes "regexp") is an abbreviation of regular expression. It's a way to match patterns within strings. Most of the time, patterns are delimitated by slashes, although not in edit filter syntax.
    • The pattern /a/ will match "cat", but not "dog". You can also use anchors in a regex - ^ means the beginning of the string and $ means the end. The following characters have special meanings: [\^$.|?*+(). To take their literal form as a character, they will need to be escaped with a backslash. To match "What?", you'll have to use the pattern /What\?/.
    • A "character class" matches only one out of several characters, using the form /[aeiou]/, which will match vowels. The negated form is /[^aeiou]/. There are several built-in classes available, such as \w for word characters, \b for word boundaries, \s for whitespace and \d for digits. The negated form is, for example, \D for non-digits. The | is the or operator (e.g. /foo|bar/ matches "foo" or "bar"). You can use special character sequences to put non-printable characters in a regex: \t for a tab character, \n for newline and \r for carriage return. \xFF inserts the character at the specified hexadecimal index. \uFFFF inserts a Unicode character.
    • The dot (.) matches any single character, except a newline. It is short for [^\n]. The question mark makes the preceding token optional (e.g. /flavou?r/ will match "flavor" and "flavour"). The asterisk makes the pattern attempt to match the preceding token zero or more times. The plus matches once or more. Curly braces specify a specific amount of repetition (e.g. /a{1,3}/ will match 1 to 3 as).
    • The quantification operators are greedy, meaning that they will consume as much of the pattern as possible. The pattern /<.+>/ will match "<b>test</b>" in "This is a <b>test</b>". Placing a question mark after the quantifier makes it lazy. /<.+?>/ will then match <b>.
    • Tokens can be grouped together by surrounding them with parentheses. You can then apply a quantifier to the group (e.g. /foo(bar)?/ matches "foo" or "foobar"). You can then make backreferences to the group (e.g. /(a|b)c\1/ will match "aca" or "bcb"). The syntax /foo(?:bar)?/ produces a non-capturing group, which is more efficient if one isn't going to use the group's contents.
      

  — Waterfox ^~talk~ 16:14, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Questions by -- DQ (t) (e)

•  Question: What method do you employ when launching a filer on enwiki?

  This was answered in my reply to Gryllida's first question. To recap:

  • Testing of the filter at my personal test wiki and/or the Test Wikipedia.
  • Consultation on talk page or personally with other EFMs.
  • Installation of the filter on the English Wikipedia as log-only.
  • Consultation on talk page or personally with other EFMs.
  • Application of restrictions, such as warn, disallow, and revoke autoconfirmed status, if required.
    

  — Waterfox ^~talk~ 20:41, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• Question: Why do you think is the amount of people with this access quite small on Wikipedia? Only very few of Administrators have it. -Gryllida 07:59, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

  Not completely sure about this, but I would suppose that most administrators don't have the technical knowledge required for such a task. — Waterfox ^~talk~ 18:09, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• Question: What wikis did you hold, and do you hold, the EFM access? -Gryllida 07:59, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

  This isn't completely relevant, to be honest, and I'm not sure I can recall. Anyway, the wiki I did most EF work on was my personal test wiki, which isn't up for public view. — Waterfox ^~talk~ 18:09, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

Since the edit filter confers admin-level ability to massively disrupt the encyclopedia, you need to demonstrate a high degree of competency, trustworthiness, and bona-fide need for the edit filter permission as a non-admin—not just assertions. I'd be extremely hesitant to support granting this to a user with relatively few edits and no demonstrated activity on edit filter-related pages. --slakr^\ talk / 00:14, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I've seen Waterfox's test wiki and I can confirm that he has demonstrated a degree of competency in regular expressions. In addition, he has already demonstrated ample amounts of skill in the management of WikiMedia websites. I agree that more participation on the filter-related pages would be desirable, I see no reason to suspect that he does not have the necessary skills or knowledge to preform related tasks correctly. --AJ00200 (talk) 01:01, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your personal, anecdotal support; however, I hope you agree that there's a huge difference between someone's personal test wiki and one of the largest sites on the internet. Unless we can get some clear, demonstrated proof, I'm going to have trouble supporting this request, and I would therefore suggest that the user simply wait until he passes requests for adminship before editing the edit filter. --slakr^\ talk / 11:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

By looking at the archive, there are some other non-admin candidates who passed without issues, and they don't seem to provide proofs which I'd find convincing. On the other hand, feel free to ask any questions relating to regular expressions or edit filter syntax, to which I'll respond to show my cluefulness. While managing the edit filter can have its potential to screw up if done incorrectly, I'm sure you'll agree that if one follows the standards by, for example, only logging hits for a few days before applying restrictions to the filter, there isn't much which one could screw up. — Waterfox ^~talk~ 14:36, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Each time that the flag is requested, those that receive it tend to have had extensive edit histories, specialization that would support having it, or have had a clear need to access it in order to import private filters to other wikimedia wikis. Shirik (talk · contribs), for example, has extensive, demonstrated anti-spam and anti-abuse development experience with bots. Vito Genovese (talk · contribs) was an admin from another wikimedia wiki needing to import filters. Tim1357 (talk · contribs) had demonstrated technical knowledge and use on-wiki as a member of our bot approvals group. Netalarm (talk · contribs) had extensive involvement in long-term abuse and thus a demonstrated need to use the edit filter to deal with those abusers. EdoDodo (talk · contribs) had a track record for operating numerous bots. Reaper Eternal (talk · contribs), who's since become an admin, already had over 25000 edits at the time he requested the flag.

In contrast, among the other numerous rejects, Wifione (talk · contribs) was not granted the right as a non-sysop and was asked to instead file for WP:RFA; he eventually passed RFA.

The common theme is that those to whom the right is granted tend to display the qualities I previously mentioned: a high degree of competency, trustworthiness, and bona-fide need for it. Having this flag allows people to cause more disruption to the encyclopedia than just being a sysop. For example, it can remove autoconfirmed status from thousands of users, de facto block large numbers of users from editing, and de facto semi- or full-protect large numbers of pages immediately—all depending on how a filter is crafted.

Long story short, if they weren't admins already, they'd typically tend to be able to be admins if they had so desired to be at the time. Taken in concert, I'm not confident that that applies to you—at least, not yet.

--slakr^\ talk / 18:08, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Taking for granted that I would follow the procedure described above, I would always consult other EFMs before applying restrictions or even warnings. Please note that while an edit filter can revoke autoconfirmed status, it cannot block users or protect pages. Even though perhaps my edit count does not impress, I am very active on IRC in various bot discussion channels and have created bot modules of my own.

From what I understand from your reply, Slakr, it seems that you think that I wouldn't live up to my own promises above (testing beforehand and consulting other EFMs) and would tend to disrupt the encyclopedia. Maybe I didn't understand what you meant?— Waterfox ^~talk~ 19:51, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think anybody here is questioning your technical ability to use regular expressions. However, this tool has historically been only given to people who would have a decent chance at passing RFA, or who would have a shot if they had more content contributions, and thus I am hesitant to support your request, seeing that you have only around 2200 edits. This tool is essentially an administrative tool. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Reaper, the reason that people with little content contributions fail at RfA usually is mainly because they're supposed to know the content policies in order to settle disputes, delete pages, etc. I can only see two potential issues with a EFM: 1) failing to craft filters properly, in good faith, resulting in disruption - as Reaper pointed out, this wouldn't be my case, 2) deliberately causing damage by disallowing many edits and revoking thousands of users' autoconfirmed status - I have a long history online and have never been acknowledged to go rogue in such a way. Maybe historically, this was only for users with a more established presence on Wikipedia and likely to pass at RfA. However, I have proved my trustworthiness with my good-faith edits and my interactions on IRC and at ACC. Therefore, I think that both the requirements for ability and trust are filled. — Waterfox ^~talk~ 20:37, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

This is pretty off-topic, but I am also a Room Monitor (roughly equivalent to a moderator) on the Firefox Chat Support, which is a job at which there's a lot of potential for screwing up. I have been with that status for around 15 months, and no issues have arisen. — Waterfox ^~talk~ 20:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• I see this request in some odd format without votes or comment sections; I would ask leave a few comments to evaluate this request. All of them are entirely optional, but can help to make a proper decision if addressed. Cheers, :-) -Gryllida 06:12, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Just my own 2 cents... I seem to see no real demonstration of Regex or EF experience in public or on related EF pages by this user. I agree with slakr, there needs to be some form of demonstrated experience for the current EF managers to look over and see that you won't break the wiki. I've also got an issue with your maturity, which I won't go into detail with. All I have to say is that everyone needs to be careful with voting on this application and being sure of this users trustworthiness and experience.  JoeGazz  ♂  16:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I have reviewed your contributions in more detail, and can conclude that you either don't understand what vandalism is, or you pay very little attention to what you are reverting. As edit filter management requires great care and knowledge of what vandalism is, this is rather concerning.

• You reverted the addition of a reliable source as vandalism.
• Here, an IP removes vandalism, which you restore. He then reverts you, and you immediately re-revert the vandalism back in, forcing the IP to wait until you get off Huggle before removing the vandalism a final time.
• Here, you revert the removal of vandalism.
• How was this addition of sourced content vandalism?
• Was it necessary to revert the removal of this unreferenced, irrelevant piece of trivia?

All of this was done within the past week, and I'm ignoring any ones where you self-reverted later. I don't think you are careful enough to be given EFM privileges. Additionally, I am concerned about possible canvassing. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:15, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I would like to point out that evidently, most of those were obvious mistakes which I didn't mean to do and which can happen once in a while when working, although I admit that I am myself a little troubled by the frequency of them. On the other hand, with a fresh look, I definitely do not consider those edits I reverted as vandalism - I want to point out the difference between a heartful misconception of vandalism and just "routinal" errors done while patrolling. I am not sure this is convincing enough to prove that I have a misconception of what vandalism is, and that that confusion would come in the way of my edit filter editing. See also my answers to questions above about the care I'd apply to edit filter edits, including prior testing and consultation. — Waterfox ^~talk~ 19:24, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm tagging this as "not done". There's just not a consensus here to grant you the flag at this time, sorry. Continue building up a solid editing history, avoid some of the mistakes Reaper Eternal has pointed out, and at some point in the future I think we'll be happy to reconsider. 28bytes (talk) 20:09, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

 –  Done Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Admin requesting EFM permission, as from time to time I see something that I could help with. I will most likely be using the permission to assist fine-tuning other filters than to create a brand new one, but having the permission would help. I will disclose that I have not dealt much with Regex, though. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 22:05, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and done it, as you are an admin and could have given yourself the right. Just please be careful. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, but I'd like to defer to people before I do something bad (or break the system, you know...) - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 06:56, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I've given BarkingFish the edit filter manager right, so that s/he can export some filters to en.wikinews from here. The filters s/he wants to export are hidden from public view. Please revert me if there are any problems. The Cavalry (Message me) 17:37, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I hope you don't take this in the wrong manner. It's just that an open discussion before giving edit filter access is generally quite helpful in understanding all the issues that may crop up, especially when it has to do with access to such a critical area which protects Wikipedia. I do realize that BarkingFish is an administrator on en.wikinews and is well trusted to request for such access. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 18:18, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Aye, I understand. I didn't think there would be too much of a problem, giving that s/he's an admin on Wikinews and is upgrading the filters there. That said, I'll ask in future. The Cavalry (Message me) 18:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

 Done. 28bytes (talk) 21:49, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

• Sole Soul (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi. I'm a Wikipedian since 2005.

• I've suggested the idea and provided the code for 2 filters:

1. Filter 346 (Large non-English contributions) initial version, final version.
2. Filter 384 (Adding one bad word and nothing else) here.

• I provided ideas for improving the efficiency of other filters [4][5], which was implemented [6][7].
• I've suggested the edit filter warnings effectiveness report.
• I've been trusted with the code of private filters in the past by Soap and Someguy1221, who has suggested that I apply for the permission.

I've experimented with the Abusefilter feature in a test wiki in the past, and I know very well that mistakes can be easily made, so testing numerously is very important (one trick I use is to set the filter initially to work only in a subpage on my user page). If in doubt, I will discuss changes with more experience users in their talkpages and privately. Thank you. Sole Soul (talk) 03:13, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I think he'd do fine with EFM. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Seeing endorsements from two EFMs and no objections after two days, I've added the flag. 28bytes (talk) 21:49, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Granted for a few weeks for viewing. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:50, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• msh210 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • I'm an admin on English Wiktionary, where the edit filter is new, and I'm looking here for ideas for useful filters, but many of the filters here are private, so I can't see them. I seek filter access here so I can see the private filters; I have no intention of editing filters here. FWIW I'm an enWP rollbacker, autopatroller, and reviewer.—msh210℠ 16:14, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with giving him the EFM bit for viewing the edit filters. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:23, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

...ping? Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:36, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

msh210, I presume you must be conversant with the AbuseFilter extn and rules format. If so, I have no issues with your being granted the filter access. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 06:08, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I think he only wants to be able to view the antivandalism filters, not edit them. If he does want to edit them, I'd be concerned based on the filters I saw at English wiktionary. Basically, my position is support giving him EFM for view only, and oppose letting him edit the filters here. (He doesn't seem to know much about regex, hence his request to be able to add some filters to Wiktionary. Correct me if I'm wrong. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:20, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Ditto... Maybe one could give him the right for a temporary period (a fortnight perhaps? and extend it on further request?). Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 14:20, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

 Done. I'll remove it in a fortnight. (Unless he still has need of viewing the filters, of course!) Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:42, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.—msh210℠ 18:56, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I do know some regex, but am not great at it; my request was both to be able to see optimization (regex, etc.) and ideas of what to filter.—msh210℠ 18:56, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

If you need help with regex, feel free to ask me on my talk page or on IRC (nickname: kudu). — Kudu ^~I/O~ 22:27, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.—msh210℠ 00:19, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Removing right post msh210's confirmation here. Wifione ^Message 08:10, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Prodego puts it quite plainly. No. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• Ebe123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • I'm a bureaucrat on incubator:, and I do abuse filters. I am fairly good with regex, but I would like the privilege to see private filters and import to incubator. I will edit sometimes. ~~Ebe123~~ (+) ^talk
    _Contribs 10:59, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

No. Prodego ^talk 04:36, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Since I see that comment alot (gave by you on this page. ~~Ebe123~~ (+) ^talk
_Contribs 12:04, 8 October 2011 (UTC)), may you elaborate? ~~Ebe123~~ (+) ^talk
_Contribs 10:42, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Prodego again puts it quite plainly. No. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:52, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• A7x (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • I'm a bureaucrat on the Test Wikipedia, and I want to import edit filters to the project. I came here looking for ideas for useful filters, but many of the filters here are private, so I can't see them. I am fairly good with regex, but I would like the privilege to view private filters and import them to the testwiki. I have no intention of editing filters here. —stay (sic)! 00:00, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not sure that any of the private filters here would be relevant to the testwiki. They're mainly for en-wiki-specific long term abuse. 28bytes (talk) 00:28, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

• Like the previous requests before, I ask the privilege to view private filters so that I may view and import filters. I want to be able to view the antivandalism filters, so I may import them for testing purposes. But I don't intend on editing filters here. —stay (sic)! 00:46, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

• No. Prodego ^talk 04:36, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm in charge of the AbuseFilter at Appropedia (home page), and I'd love to be able to access the more important anti-spam filters that are currently hidden from my view.

Re my reliability here, I have:

• a fairly solid editing history on en - several thousand edits and north of 60 new articles.
• understanding of regex (through running Pywikipediabot on Appropedia for > 4 years).
• no intention at all of editing any filters on Wikipedia - if I have suggestions based on my own filter work, I will share them with the Edit Filter wranglers here.
• experience with AbuseFilter, stopping the vast majority of spam on Appropedia, with very occasional false positives, mainly with filters I built myself - but I want to reduce the false positives closer to zero.

I understand that this is a closely guarded user right, but I also understand that others have been given access in similar circumstances, on a temporary basis. Thanks. --Chriswaterguy talk 19:39, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why not. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:13, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Anyone...? Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:06, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm here. I see no problem with Chris getting this right. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 21:14, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I guess the granter-of-edit-filter-rights is tied up, but that's okay. I'm glad to report that the spam filters I've put together on Appropedia are now doing very nicely. I'm still keen to see Wikipedia's filters when I can, though. --Chriswaterguy talk 13:43, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Granted for viewing purposes only. Technically I shouldn't assign the rights as I'm a supporter, but whatever. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:30, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I've started looking, found some useful filters already. If I can't find anything equivalent to my spam filter, I'll email it to you. --Chriswaterguy talk 07:55, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I often come across a number of problematic edits, which happens in some abundance in WP:FILM. It would be useful to have edit filter. Some statistics (though everybody can check the pre-set links) :-

• 9,000 + edits, 27 new articles, 2 GAs (with one being worked towards FA as we speak), 3 DYKs and 1 ITN.
• Use Twin kle, but the problem is that some editors just don't stop.
• Currently a reviewer, though pending changes is technically not implemented.

Regards, ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 12:25, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

What is your knowledge of regex and what edits do you plan on filtering? Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:33, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

 Not done Procedural decline, no response and no indications of support. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:30, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I have spent a huge amount of my spare time combatting vandalism and I think I could bring lots to the table when it comes to filtering edits.

• I use Twinkle, Stiki, and Lupin's Anti-Vandal Tool. I have rollback rights.
• I wish to have tools that can help me make a bigger difference in combatting vandalism on the site.
• I have programming knowledge. With regex, C++, html, Javascript, and Flash.
• I plan on creating filters for phrases that can't be anything but vandalism.
• I am free to address any concerns.

Thank You for looking into this -Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 02:06, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Anyone here? Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 22:30, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello? Anyone have feedback? Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 20:28, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

 Not done. Sorry, but a review of your edits convinces me that you are not yet a careful enough editor to be given edit filter rights. 28bytes (talk) 21:51, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I thought this was a discussion. Where people discuss their opinions before a decision is made. Rather than just a flat out accept or deny. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others)

Also, can you cite examples of particular things I can improve on rather then just saying "Well you are just not careful enough" Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 22:30, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Most of the examples that gave me pause are still on your talk page. None of those discussions mean that you're a bad editor, just that you're still relatively new here and learning the ropes. Nothing wrong with that – we're all new at some point – but for someone with as short a tenure as you've got, I'd really need to get a sense that you've got the policies and guidelines down cold before I'd be comfortable granting you a right that not even admins have by default. 28bytes (talk) 23:53, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Uh. OK, but again, I thought this was supposed to be a discussion where many editors gave feedback. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 01:52, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

The point remains the same, is it not? Many editors will also say that you have a short tenure here and stay here for some time and then ask filter rights, isn't it so? That's the point, be smart :-) Dipankan ^{(Have a chat?)} 10:55, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

EFM is not really a consensus-driven process. If six or seven newer editors supported you and two EFMs opposed you I would close as not granted. If you want to call EFM elitist, so be it—it's a tool more dangerous than the full admin toolbox. Additionally, I and other EFMs can and do close requests as "No." with no other feedback. See the permissions archive for several of these. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:30, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

OK. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 16:14, 8 May 2012 (UTC)