Wikipedia:Edit filter/False positives/Reports

Edit filter management
Tags management

Click here to report a false positive
To report a false positive affecting an editor other than yourself, click here instead.

Wreckoning90125

Username

Wreckoning90125 (talk · contribs) (filter log)

Page you were editing

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minor-attracted person (filter log)

Description

contribute to deletion discussion

Date and time

23:20, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments

Private – One or more of the filters triggered are private, and the request needs to be evaluated by an edit filter helper or manager. 172.112.210.32 (talk) 20:01, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Checking with the edit filter managers to see if changes need to be made. @MuskiAnimal: @ProcrastinatingReader: @Suffusion of Yellow: Taking Out The Trash (talk) 01:35, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Taking Out The Trash:

Fixed, thanks for the ping. @QEDK:, see Special:AbuseFilter/history/1053/diff/prev/25874. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:33, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

70.175.192.217

Username

70.175.192.217 (talk · contribs) (filter log)

Page you were editing

Franzisca Baruch (filter log)

Description

Someone removed all the content from the page

Date and time

18:23, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments

Private – One or more of the filters triggered are private, and the request needs to be evaluated by an edit filter helper or manager. (automated comment) — MajavahBot (talk · contributions) 18:24, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Someone else fixed the problem right after I tried to. It was still annoying that the filter blocked me from doing it. Looking at the filter logs for the page, several other people tried to revert the vandalism too, and were prevented by the filter. (The article is currently on top of "Did you know" and therefore receiving high traffic.) It boggles the mind that reverting the complete removal of all content from an article namespace page would be considered suspicious; if anything, the edit that removed the content should have triggered an alarm. 70.175.192.217 (talk) 18:37, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Already done by Afernand74., however

Checking with the edit filter managers to see if changes need to be made. regarding the claim about multiple false positives. @MuskiAnimal: @ProcrastinatingReader: @Suffusion of Yellow:

Fixed Special:AbuseFilter/history/1122/diff/prev/25873 Not perfect, but hopefully not as many of this sort of FP. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:20, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2601:545:8201:6290:C072:91A0:EF0D:2D44

Username

2601:545:8201:6290:C072:91A0:EF0D:2D44 (talk · contribs) (filter log)

Page you were editing

Talk:Chris Langham (filter log)

Description

Adding to section " 'Convicted paedophile' ", addressing the fundamental issue of the section, which is improper labeling. It was 14 years ago, true, but that doesn't make the edit unconstructive or vandalistic, as truth (generally) does not expire. I would ask that my edit be treated as "acceptable unless PROVEN unconstructive", and not merely dismissed as "nonessential"

Date and time

17:43, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments

Private – One or more of the filters triggered are private, and the request needs to be evaluated by an edit filter helper or manager. (automated comment) — MajavahBot (talk · contributions) 17:43, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not done – The filter is working properly. There is no reason to edit or reply to a 14-year-old discussion. If you have new content/comments on the matter you should start a new section with a pointer reference to the previous discussion. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 22:11, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CanadaInternationalStudentCouncil

Username: CanadaInternationalStudentCouncil (talk · contribs) (filter log)
Page you were editing: [[1]] (filter log)
Description: was simply updating the page to reflect more information, using Canadian government documents and data. One of the reports used was accessed via the Freedom of Information Act and is not available publicly so i put a link to the released report from my google drive. If this is not acceptable I am not sure how else to make the information source public. No ill intent I assure you.
Date and time: 19:35, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Comments: Already done. Edits weren't disallowed, however the username is probably inappropriate as implying shared use. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 22:12, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2603:8080:B208:EE14:4DFE:C99F:376E:E4AC

Username

2603:8080:B208:EE14:4DFE:C99F:376E:E4AC (talk · contribs) (filter log)

Page you were editing

Infectious coryza in chickens (filter log)

Description

Will not accept "cocks" as the name for male chickens

Date and time

19:35, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments

Declined – Edits were vandalism. Very sneaky vandalism, but vandalism nonetheless. This was not an attempt to identify a male chicken, at least not in the edits that were actually blocked (the filter hits were edits regarding symptoms of a disease, where this name would not be appropriate). Taking Out The Trash (talk) 22:16, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced this was vandalism. Maybe someone who knows more about ornithology or veterinary science could chime in, but I don't know what the previous text in the diff, "wattles of corks", could possibly refer to. As far as I know, a "cork" is not any part of bird anatomy, whereas a wattle is a body part of birds that is often more prominent in males. It's not clear to me why "[the word 'cock'] would not be appropriate" in an article specifically about a disease affecting chickens, where information about how it affects males vs. females could be relevant. Further, the IP has several other edits to pages about animal diseases and I don't see any pattern of bad-faith edits, quite the opposite.

Also, even if you still think this edit was vandalism, they still have several live edits up at the page, and some from a similar IP in the same range (although I don't see any actual introduced problems). In fact, the page currently contains the text "c_o_r_k" which is obviously just a way to evade the filter. So this situation has not been fully dealt with in either case.

Pinned – This thread has been pinned and will not be archived until this template has been removed. 70.175.192.217 (talk) 22:32, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]