Wikipedia talk:Edit filter

Request for permission

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)

help desk enquiry

There's a query on the help desk where an editor says whenever he tries to add any references to any pages, he gets a message about external links being present. Do take a look at this and comment if required. Thanks. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 04:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

That is unrelated to the abusefilter, that's the spam captcha. Prodego ^talk 12:34, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 19:44, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

on.nimp.org

Even in non-hyperlinked form, might be a good thing to block, lest someone copy and paste it into their address bar. I'm not sure if it still hosts malware, but we definitely don't want to be sending anyone there. Just came across this diff where it was used. Given that on.nimp.org is known by the name "Last Measure", I think we can be assured that blocking the string won't block legitimate reference to the site. Throwaway85 (talk) 01:02, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I would say this is probably a better candidate for the spam blacklist instead. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 02:35, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Would that also block it if it was entered in plain text, though, or just as a link? —Soap— 15:47, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

It would also work for plaintext URLs (per the Documentation, it simply builds a regex like /https?:\/\/[a-z0-9\-.]*(line 1|line 2|line 3|....)/Si to do the match). --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 15:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Does filter 261 need to be private?

Does filter 261 need to be private? Sole Soul (talk) 02:28, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Request for Edit Filter Access: Tim1357

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)

Test edits

Filter 18 is supposed to detect test edits. I reviewed a lot of hits by this filter, and it was clear to me that in most cases the incorrect wikitext is being added by mistake. It is not a test edit unless the user is editing with the intention to test. The problem here is the warning shown to the user. A lot of new users are already hesitant to edit in fear of screwing something. They need us to tell them to be bold and not to worry about good-intentioned mistakes. I think this filter should be a tag only filter, or at least, the warning message should be tweaked to address the possibility of mistakes. Sole Soul (talk) 18:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Filter 18 has been disabled for nearly 6 months now for this exact reason. There was discussion a while ago to just have a bot do cleanups, but I don't think that was ever followed through on. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 13:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

How embarrassing, I did not notice the dates. I came across this edit filter by browsing the warning messages, not the Management page. Thank you Shirik. Sole Soul (talk) 13:39, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Filter 1

HEY