Voting on: Enabling the AbuseFilter extension, adding the abusefilter-modify, abusefilter-revert, and abusefilter-view-private rights ("Manage edit filters", "Revert all changes by a given abuse filter", and "View abuse filters marked as private", respectively) to the Administrators user group, and adding abusefilter-view ("View abuse filters"), abusefilter-log-detail ("View detailed abuse log entries"), and abusefilter-log ("View the abuse log") to all users.
Support, because of the explanation in W:Wikipedia:Edit filter, from which I infer that this extension is already used in Wikipedia, and that this is something like a complex and flexible generalization of an anti-spam filter. This extension includes among the consequent actions of a anti-spam-like rule things like "The user's action may be disallowed" and "The user can be warned that their actions may be unconstructive". There is a list of wikis where the extension is already enabled: Meta:Abuse filter; included are en:WP, de:WP, es:WP, en:wikibooks, pt:wikt, en:news, etc.. An example rule that I imagine could be implemented using the extension (a guess, an estimate): Given a user's edit, if the user is an anonymous one, and the edit reduces the size of the page to less than two thirds, then reject the edit. Such a rule would prevent edits like this. --Dan Polansky09:00, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeEncycloPetey 03:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC) This looks like it was designed for Wikipedia, and does not seem to fit our community's potential needs. Unless there are specific reasons for having this (other than "Everyone else is doing it.") then I don't think we should enable it. It looks more like one more way for grumpy admins to war with each other, which we don't need. --EncycloPetey03:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per EP. Speaking as one of the grumpy admins, I can vouch for the fact that we already have plenty of ways to war with each other. :-) —RuakhTALK13:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain until such time as someone presents a specific filter that (s)he would like to see applied. If there are no such filters, then we don't need the extension. —RuakhTALK21:21, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if I'm worried about anything, it's that consensus won't be relevant — experience shows that a number of admins are happy to use their priv in ways the community doesn't support — but to clarify, no, that's not what I was getting at. I just wanted an example of a specific filter that you had in mind, so I could see what your thinking was; the second sentence was just an afterthought. —RuakhTALK14:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can think of a number of uses for AbuseFilter we might find useful. We'll probably want to import some of the simple "tagging" filters from WP (repeated characters, words commonly used in vandalism, etc.), we might want to consider having a "warning" explaining the RFD and RFV processes when a non-whitelisted user removes a language section (is that possible?), and we'll probably want to outright disallow creation of entries containing unmodified basic entry templates (the ones suggested on the search page). We might want to put up a warning-type filter explaining the basic entry layout and linking to ELE when a user creates an entry missing some of the necessary components. Maybe edits adding non-templated external links could be tagged? And links to File:Example.jpg, <pre>'s, text placed where it's not allowed by ELE, and signatures in the mainspace? I'm not exactly sure what the extension is capable of, but I think we'll find many helpful uses for it. --Yair rand (talk) 20:02, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 6-3-1; 66,7% or two thirds in support (= 6 / 6 + 3). I don't know whether this is a pass; I would tend to the result of no consensus, as it does not strictly surpass the lower threshold of two thirds (66,7%). Another threshold in discussion was 70%, by which this would definitely be no consensus. --Dan Polansky07:37, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yair rand (talk) 04:27, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Oppose, as no need for this has been shown to exist.—msh210℠ (talk) 18:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Abstain Mglovesfun (talk) 05:16, 3 October 2010 (UTC). I don't understand what it is with enough detail, therefore I can neither support nor oppose it. Mglovesfun (talk) 05:16, 3 October 2010 (UTC) 
