Wikipedia:Edit filter/False positives/Archive 1

62.178.80.242

 * Username !
 * 62.178.80.242


 * Page you were editing
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=GOM_Player&oldid=279556328


 * Description
 * Fix buggy wikilink


 * Date and time
 * 10:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments


 * This is an old hit. Please see the notice at the top of the page. The filter has been confirmed as bugged during the time you tried this edit. It should be corrected now. - Mgm|(talk) 20:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

ayiew

 * Username_-


 * Page you were editing
 * bete noir


 * Description
 * Add information about the history of the term literal translations and connotation


 * Date and time
 * 15:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments


 * For whoever comes after me. The actual article was Bête noire and the filter that triggered was filter 9. I was unable to find a direct cause for the hit, but the fact the edit said there was a racist meaning to the phrase in question is probably relevant somehow. - Mgm|(talk) 22:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Filter 9 is mostly my doing, I'll have a look. BJ Talk 10:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This was due to the wording of the edit, "literal translation is stupid in french". I'm going to split the filter to be warn only for new users (the accounts have to be found and blocked anyhow). BJ Talk 11:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * x2, "stupid" is warn only. BJ Talk 09:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Cvillarro

 * Username


 * Page you were editing
 * Monitoring and Measurement in the Next Generation Technologies


 * Description
 * My goal is to change the format of this page as it contains warning messages, which indicate that the page needs to be cleaned and which contains material not suitable for an encyclopedia.


 * Date and time
 * 09:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments


 * I've tagged the page for WP:CSD speedy deletion because it is full of marketing speak. Once it's gone, feel free to write an article with neutral language. - Mgm|(talk) 10:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

219.105.64.14 (reported by LtPowers)

 * Username
 * User:219.105.64.14


 * Page in question
 * Come Back to Me (Hikaru Utada song)


 * Description
 * IP tried to remove what appears to be an extraneous tag, but a filter that is designed to prevent new users from removing references triggered.


 * Date and time
 * 08:47, 19 March 2009


 * Reported by
 * User:LtPowers

Geez, I'm fine -a girl who is a friend of wikipedia

Are you sure that the IP was prevented from making that edit? The filter is currently set to log, and take no action. --Conti|✉ 13:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * Sorry, I was confused at first. The IP was not prevented from making the edit.  Still learning how the filter works.  =)  Powers T 13:44, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, me too. ;) --Conti|✉ 13:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Not resolved, we ought to work on fixing this. BTW we need to use something better then changing the *title* for resolved... changing the title breaks links made by right clicking on the TOC. ——  nix eagle email me 00:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Should we? In all the trips I've seen yesterday, this was the only case of a lone tag being removed which had no paired closing tag. Unless this shows up more often, I don't think hashing out some complicated regx to figure out of the removed tag has a brother/sister is workable. - Mgm|(talk) 08:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

208.81.184.4 (reported by MacGyverMagic)

 * The anon triggered filter 59 for removing image licensing tags. See this report for details. Apparently the filter doesn't take into account removed and re-added material as the result of moving stuff around. - Mgm|(talk) 00:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Should be fixed in this diff: (not done by me) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:AbuseFilter/history/59/diff/prev/565 ——  nix eagle email me 00:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually that's fairly hack-y. It only addresses a rather limited class of problems.  Other kinds of modifications that move tags around would still trip the filter.  Since assembling a list of all possible image tags is out of the question, I don't really have a good answer to this.  Dragons flight (talk) 00:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've got a list of (nearly) all the image tags, but I don't think the abuse filter would be too happy with a list of 276 277 regexes. --Carnildo (talk) 02:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know it is possible to construct such a list, but as you guessed it is not practical to use it in the filter. Dragons flight (talk) 02:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It might be a hack, but from what I've seen in other filters, it's the common sort of code that happened to be forgotten in the earlier version. This hack should take care of the false positive described. - Mgm|(talk) 08:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * My comment was based on the fact there are obviously other paths to false positives. Some of them could be eliminated at the expense of creating false negatives, and so on.  The limitations of the system don't really let one code this problem correctly, though the coding might be good enough to still be useful.  Dragons flight (talk) 09:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

151.190.254.108
151.190.254.108 (talk) 20:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Username
 * Page you were editing
 * Humanism


 * Description
 * There's a tendentious editor who deletes any sourced facts that disagrees with his POV, and claims it's "restoring NPOV." I deleted a large block of text he added that completely reversed the positions of several historians already cited in the article and explained on the talk page that we needed to be more fair: we can't just add facts that supports his favorite POV while he continuously acts as a disruptive editor, removing cited facts that are inconvenient to his viewpoint. There was already wording that attributed the contentious viewpoint to a third source, which he always alters to present as fact without citation. I'm sure we can revert to the less NPOV wording when he ceases his disruptive editing.


 * Date and time
 * When it happened

20:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a page for listing instances when the new AbuseFilter made a mistake. How was the filter involved in this article? - Mgm|(talk) 22:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You hit filter 30. Filter 30 is advisory only, it will hit some good edits. The point of it is to give people who may be confused the correct thing to do, rather than just removing content. It does not block you from making your edit. Prodego  talk  02:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

70.17.170.171

 * 70.17.170.171
 * User:70.17.170.171


 * Page you were editing
 * Irina Slutskaya


 * Description
 * Made the article comply with standards used in every other skating article


 * Date and time
 * When it happened
 * 01:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

This is really disturbing. Why not outright ban anon editing? This is just a backdoor way of doing it.

You hit filter 30. Filter 30 is advisory only, it will hit some good edits. The point of it is to give people who may be confused the correct thing to do, rather than just removing content. It does not block you from making your edit. Prodego talk  02:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

register98765

 * User


 * Page you were editing
 * Bill Guttentag


 * Description
 * Editing filmography to add internal wiki links


 * Date and time
 * 21:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Reviewer's comments

This doesn't appear to be a false positive: In this edit you added  to the bottom of the article, which set off the filter. If you accidentally hit a toolbar button in the future and get this warning, just be sure to remove the stuff the toolbar stuck in. 130.85.236.136 (talk) 06:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

LethalCorpse

 * Username


 * Page you were editing
 * Talk:Schadenfreude


 * Description
 * Add comments on the validity of "lulz" as a synonym for schadenfreude


 * Date and time
 * 12:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments


 * Fair point, I'll take out "lulz". NawlinWiki (talk) 14:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but any idea why I hit the filter? LethalCorpse (talk) 02:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The filter was recently created with a wide range of phrases often used in abusive comments. One of these was "lulz".  In point of fact, that wasn't a very smart thing for the filter to target, and it has now been removed from the filter.  Sorry for the inconvenience.  Dragons flight (talk) 02:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

122.55.166.254

 * Username


 * Page you were editing
 * Tau Gamma Phi


 * Description
 * I just had a look at the hits of filter 9 and found this false positive. --Conti|✉ 12:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Date and time
 * 12:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments

There have been a few other technical false positives on "gay" so far but I have yet to find any practical false positives (the above edit in question was inappropriate, when listing in a members section you give their occupation not sexual orientation). BJ Talk 11:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "gay" is now warn only. BJ Talk 09:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

P22g

 * Username


 * Page you were editing
 * Symbiosis Institute of Management Studies (SIMS)


 * Description
 * Cleaning up the article and removing the advertisement nature/part of the text.


 * Date and time
 * 09:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments


 * This is not a false positive. The filter is designed to find blankings of large portions of articles by new users. You did in fact delete a large portion of the text. The filter warned you to make sure it was intention and then logged your edit for review by a human to make sure it was in fact a productive edit as a preventive measure to ensure article quality. Everything was working exactly as designed. An entry on the log won't be held against you. - Mgm|(talk) 10:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

aezagorski12

 * Username


 * Page you were editing
 * editing my space sensor gallery


 * Description
 * addding text for the site.


 * Date and time
 * 14:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments


 * This is not a false positive. You were adding verbatim text from an external website, which is a copyright violation.  Since you persisted after numerous warnings, you have been temporarily blocked.   Acroterion  (talk)  14:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

supernatura85

 * Username


 * Page you were editing
 * Block 815


 * Description
 * I was trying to delete the article because it was totally false, there is no such thing as a television show called Block 815


 * Date and time
 * 15:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments

If you feel an article should be deleted, please follow the instructions for WP:AFD, WP:PROD, or WP:CSD fahadsadah (talk,contribs) 16:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

207.237.223.118

 * Username


 * Page you were editing
 * Denis Leary


 * Description
 * IMDb an open wiki disallowed as reference source; anyone can add anything to news/bios/cast section, with only cursory oversight


 * Date and time
 * 18:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments

IMDb can be used as a reference, but it's not usually considered to be a reliable source. With other sources backing it up, it's fine to use, though. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 01:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * IMDB is not a wiki. And whether it is a good source depends on what it is supposed to reference. If it covers someone's filmography, it tends to be reliable, less so for biographical data. Your edit triggered filter 61 which merely logs edits for further review and warns users of the potential problems with such edits. You do have a point about wikis. I'll make sure those are included in the list of acceptable removals. - Mgm|(talk) 09:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

67.171.33.138

 * Username


 * Page you were editing
 * Interstate 5 in Washington


 * Description
 * Summary of changes


 * Date and time
 * 21:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments

The only thing I can think of that I did was name a reference that didn't have a name so I could use it again later in the paragraph.


 * That does appear to be a false alert. I'll take a look at it in a moment to see why it tripped. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 01:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Hopefully this is fixed now - we had a >= check instead of a <= check, so your edit tripped the filter when it shouldn't have. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 01:39, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * This was indeed a bug. The filter tripped because you named an unnamed reference. I had intended to include it in the code, but the code I used was faulty. It has now been corrected. - Mgm|(talk) 09:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

71.183.238.134

 * Username: 11:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments
 * rather arcane method for reporting false positives.
 * false positive claims "removing reference" didn't touch a reference


 * It was caused by a typo which has now been corrected. - Mgm|(talk) 13:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

129.98.197.40

 * Username


 * Page you were editing
 * Log in / Create an account


 * Description
 * trying to create a username, and it tripped a filter


 * Date and time
 * 15:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments


 * Someone messed up and effectively blocked nearly all account creation for 20 minutes. This has now been fixed.  We're sorry about that.  Dragons flight (talk) 17:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Trying to create an account

 * Username


 * Page you were editing
 * The page you were trying to edit


 * Description
 * I was trying to create an account.


 * Date and time
 * 15:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments


 * Someone messed up and effectively blocked nearly all account creation for 20 minutes. This has now been fixed.  We're sorry about that.  Dragons flight (talk) 17:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Testaccount1729

 * Username


 * Page you were editing
 * User:Testaccount1729/monobook.js


 * Description
 * In an attempt to investigate a possibly buggy interaction between IE and User:AzaToth/morebits.js, I pasted the entire code into my own .js and tweaked it slightly


 * Date and time
 * 22:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments


 * Should be fixed now. Dragons flight (talk) 22:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

192.91.147.34

 * Username


 * Page you were editing
 * Nathu La


 * Description
 * The cite given didn't support the statement in its present form even if it wasn't a dead link, so I replaced it with a fact tag.


 * Date and time
 * 00:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments


 * Edits like the one you made (replacing a reference with a fact tag) are caught on purpose because they are often abused by people who first tag something with a fact tag, then delete it later for being unreferenced, when they were the ones to remove the reference in the first place. You gave a proper explanation of your actions which allows other editors to check its accuracy, so tripping the filter will not be held against you. I know tripping a filter is annoying, but it is necessary to ensure the quality of the articles. -- Mgm|(talk) 10:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

SWBVDM

 * Username


 * Page you were editing
 * Jeremy Cruchtley


 * Description
 * CREATING IT!


 * Date and time
 * 20:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments


 * You triggered two filters: filter 76 which logs any edit that tries to add an email address to an article (but takes no further action) and filter 97 which warns people from including personal attacks in an article and tags any further edits for human review. It probably triggered because of the name Woodcock, but the warning is just that. You can still make the article if there are no intentional obscenities in there. Your edit would merely be tagged for review by another editor to make sure it is okay. - Mgm|(talk) 09:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

87.69.177.35

 * Username


 * Page you were editing
 * Richard Simmons


 * Description
 * I was reinstating the popular culture section, since it was removed without any reason given in the edit summary. I've been blocked by the "potentially unconstructive" filter several times.


 * Date and time
 * 03:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments


 * you still may get a warning but the edit will be allowed now. BJ Talk 14:28, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

168.105.121.125

 * Username


 * Page you were editing
 * Dodge SRT-4


 * Description
 * Adding a fact tag to the 'over 1000 horsepower' claim


 * Date and time
 * 19:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments


 * I searched your contributions, the filter Log, your username, and the article. There is no evidence any of them tripped a filter. Are you sure you didn't misspell something? - Mgm|(talk) 19:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * See It seems you removed a &lt;ref tag at the same time. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not a false positive. The edit you made broke the reference formatting, which the filter was designed to find. - 87.211.75.45 (talk) 23:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

128.174.237.100

 * Username


 * Page you were editing
 * Tara Correa-McMullen


 * Description
 * Merging two repeated refs into a single ref using the tag.  It would be great if this filter could check to see if the URL in the ref still exists in the article and/or if the ref is being replaced with a  tag which refers to an existing ref.


 * Date and time
 * 19:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments


 * Neither (re)naming references nor removing closing tags for named references should be triggering the filter. I'll check into this. - Mgm|(talk) 20:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed. - Mgm|(talk) 21:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

58.8.13.227

 * Username


 * Page you were editing
 * Talk:List of people who have mysteriously disappeared/Archive 2


 * Description
 * Archiving inactive talk page discussions


 * Date and time
 * 14:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments

I modified the filter so that this kind of false positive hopefully won't happen again in the future. --Conti|✉ 19:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, appreciated. Keep up the good work! 58.8.3.66 (talk) 20:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC) (previously )

Kam725

 * Username


 * Page you were editing
 * Goole


 * Description
 * I direct the page to let someone know that Macao is good for us to visit, as Macao is a very safe place, Macao is the famous cooked food and food, Macao is a place, you may purchase nearly all things.


 * Date and time
 * 22:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments

Not a false positive, edit was inappropriate. --Conti|✉ 16:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Cathleen242

 * Username


 * Page you were editing
 * Talk:Chocolate


 * Description
 * I tried to submit a Request for Edit on the discussion page and received a message that said there was a repeated sequence of characters. I am not sure what the problem is.


 * Date and time
 * 20:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments

tromb08chase

 * Username


 * Page you were editing
 * The Bearded Ones


 * Description
 * I was creating a page for the band my friends and I started. It is not vandalism, just trying to get our names out there.


 * Date and time
 * 20:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place to promote your band. MER-C 12:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Mjroots

 * Username


 * Page you were editing
 * Fossarina


 * Description
 * Create a shipindex page, use of {a condom should fuck your mom and u wouldn't come iut} should mean that the warning isn't triggered


 * Date and time
 * 19:45, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments

TechOutsider

 * Username


 * Page you were editing
 * Virgin Killer


 * Description
 * Removing extra set of "


 * Date and time
 * 02:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments

" that were showing.

Kenb215

 * Username
 * User:Kenb215


 * Page you were editing
 * Images for upload

I was clearing through the backlog of Images for Upload. It was my third time in a row of doing basically the same two edits: add templates to WP:IFU section with comment, add template to user page, add same templates to WP:IFU section with different comment, add same template to different user page. The abuse log entry says I tripped filter 58, 4chan attacks on specific users. 01:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Description
 * Date and time

Luke4545

 * Username
 * User:Luke4545


 * Page you were editing
 * AnnaSophia Robb


 * Description
 * I was attempting to revert an inaccurate edit by the IP 71.210.96.237, but after I clicked the "Save page" button, the following message subsequently showed up: "An automated filter has identified this edit as potentially unconstructive, and it has been disallowed. In addition, your account has been temporarily restricted from executing some sensitive operations. If this edit is constructive, please report this error."  I noticed the user Gimmetrow reverted the IP's edit; thus, maybe an edit conflict occurred.  If that's the case, though, then why did I receive that message?  Do I currently have any restrictions? Here is the abuse filter log entry.


 * Date and time
 * 01:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

JackofOz

 * Username
 * User:JackofOz


 * Page you were editing
 * User:JackofOz


 * Description
 * Simply adding some innocuous extra words about myself to my user page


 * Date and time
 * 01:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Update: After getting this message 3 times, and posting this report here, I've tried again and my edit worked this time. The problem, whatever it was, seem to be fixed - as least so far it pertains to me. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

25or6to4

 * Username
 * User:25or6to4


 * Page you were editing
 * Sheldon, North Dakota


 * Description
 * Have been updating North Dakota cities with new maps. This is on in a long series of edits.  Think it might be the extraneous extra space after mpasize?


 * Date and time
 * When it happened
 * 01:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Grutness

 * Username
 * User:Grutness


 * Page you were editing
 * Caversham, New Zealand


 * Description
 * I was adding a reference to the article. The reference is not from a dodgy website - it is a paper form, and the same reference (Bishop, D.G., and Turnbull, I.M. (compilers) (1996). Geology of the Dunedin Area. Lower Hutt, NZ: Institute of Geological & Nuclear Sciences. ISBN 0-478-09521-X.) is already used on several other articles (e.g., Lawyer's Head). Given that (a) I am trying to get the article to A status (and references generall help), and (b) having my account " temporarily restricted from executing some sensitive operations" will cause problems (I am an admin and am often involved in "sensitive operations"), the sooner you can sort this, the better. Please.
 * Tried adding it again and it worked fine this time. Bizarre. Am I still restricted?


 * Date and time
 * 01:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Username

 * Username
 * User:Awb49


 * Page you were editing
 * George Macdonald


 * Description
 * What you did: I tried to revert vandalism on the page.


 * Date and time
 * When it happened 01:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * (if it was very recently, you can type five tildes: 01:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC))

Ashley_kennedy3

 * Username
 * User:Ashley_kennedy3


 * Page you were editing
 * Israeli–Palestinian conflict


 * Description
 * entered a reference


 * Date and time
 * 01:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

David Eppstein

 * Username
 * User:David Eppstein


 * Page you were editing
 * Cartesian tree


 * Description
 * I attempted to replace the category of the page, Category:Trees (structure), with a more descriptive subcategory, Category:Binary trees. Not only was this innocuous edit prevented, but the error message told me that my account has been “temporarily restricted from executing some sensitive operations”. For what it's worth, I'm an admin and I would consider this behavior extremely WP:BITEY if it happened to someone unfamiliar with Wikipedia. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * PS Here are the details.

The New Mikemoral

 * [[User:The New Mikemoral]


 * Page you were editing
 * User:The New Mikemoral/mentor


 * Description
 * replied to my adoptee


 * Date and time
 * 01:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Auranor

 * Username
 * User:Auranor


 * Page you were editing
 * Woodcock (disambiguation)


 * Description
 * I added a disambiguation entry for the Woodcock (disambiguation) page. It notes that two major psychological tests have "Woodcock" in their name. My edit: "* The psychological tests of the Dean-Woodcock Neuropsychological Assessment System or Woodcock Johnson Tests of Cognitive Abilities". Perhaps the word "Johnson" set off the filter?


 * Date and time
 * 18:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It was the cock in the edit summary, I believe the filter has been set to log only now. – xeno  ( talk ) 18:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Debresser

 * User:Debresser
 * User:Debresser


 * Page you were editing
 * Elysium

"Elysium is the largest of the Limbo Islands. It's often referred to as the Polynesian paradise. Vanilla, sugar, cocoa, coffee, phosphates and rum are the chief exports."

I removed the space in front of the paragraph (causing it to show inside a frame) and added the reference title (removing the broken citation error).

"Elysium is the largest of the Limbo Islands. It's often referred to as the Polynesian paradise. Vanilla, sugar, cocoa, coffee, phosphates and rum are the chief exports."

I do this kind of work a;; the time. 13:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The test edit artifact was left by a previous user... – xeno  ( talk ) 13:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Those kinds of false positives where another editor gets the warning should reduce significantly with time since they'll now be caught right away. -- Amalthea 13:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Timsdad

 * User:Timsdad

I see this page has only recently been implemented, but I have already had a problem with this filter disallowing my edits to Newcastle Jets season 2009-10. My action apparently matched the rule: Test type edits from clicking on edit bar. I simply slightly rewrote the intro, and changed some stats to bring the article up to standard.
 * This was a bit before 07:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This is my log detail that I have studied thoroughly and there doesn't appear to be any test editing visible in my changes.
 * Thanks, timsdad   (talk) 07:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There were two empty refs in the page. I removed them, so you should be able to make your edit now.  Prodego  talk  08:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Cheers, Prodego. Didn't spot it, guess I should have looked harder. Thanks, again. -- timsdad  (talk) 08:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Cycle~
Filter has been disabled. --Conti|✉ 01:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Username
 * User:Cycle~


 * Page you were editing
 * Natasha Richardson


 * Description
 * Formatting time in accordance with MOSTIME (adding spaces, colons etc.) – general formatting on a semi-protected article


 * Date and time
 * 01:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Someone the Person
Filter has been disabled. --Conti|✉ 01:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Username
 * User:Someone the Person


 * Page you were editing
 * Hayani


 * Description
 * I tried to replaced the link to Samani, which redirected to a Japanese location, with a link to Samani (Assyrian king), an article that didn't exist yet.


 * Date and time
 * 01:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Grant.Alpaugh
Filter has been disabled. --Conti|✉ 01:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Username
 * User:Grant.Alpaugh


 * Page you were editing
 * Major League Soccer


 * Description
 * I removed the sentence relating to expansion of the league from the lead, as it has been discussed many, many times and consensus is that expansion should be discussed later in the article and not in the lead or infobox


 * Date and time
 * 01:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Jbolden1517
Filter has been disabled. --Conti|✉ 01:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Jbolden1517
 * User:Jbolden1517


 * Page you were editing
 * Category:Christ Myth


 * A new Category I was creating
 * Creating a cat. Fixing up some problems like capitol M instead of lowercase m in link to main article.
 * 9:03 pm EST; 1:03 (UTC)
 * jbolden1517Talk 01:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * jbolden1517Talk 01:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Username
Filter has been disabled. --Conti|✉ 01:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Username
 * User:Spencer


 * Page you were editing
 * Pocasset, Massachusetts


 * Description
 * I've been fixing repetitive errors in articles listed in Category:Coord template needing repair. (usually changing the "60" in the seconds area of coordinates to "0" and increasing the minuted part by one, which it should be.


 * Date and time
 * 01:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Mlaffs
Filter has been disabled. --Conti|✉ 01:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Username
 * User:Mlaffs


 * Page you were editing
 * User:Mlaffs/Missing_U.S._radio_station_articles


 * Description
 * I was removing a redlink to a radio station translator from this list of missing articles


 * Date and time
 * 01:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Nbarth
Filter has been disabled. --Conti|✉ 01:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks!
 * —Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 01:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Username
 * User:Nbarth


 * Page you were editing
 * Info-gap decision theory


 * Description
 * I added a link to black swan theory to info-gap decision theory, with edit summary "black swan". Perhaps this is b/c black swan theory is being advocated too frequently (I got the banner, so perhaps that is the problem?), or because the info-gap page is very contentious? (I’ve been editing it lately.)
 * Reading more about filters, I’m guessing this is filter 4 (Copernicus vandal) or 58 (4chan attacks on specific users), as those are the "Disallow, Block autopromote" ones – presumably it’s 58, as that’s recently modified? Maybe it’s 36 (SEO push University of Atlanta, as that’s also Block autopromote?


 * Date and time
 * 01:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

J JMesserly
Filter has been disabled. --Conti|✉ 01:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * J JMesserly (talk)

Hi. There was a false positive on a page I edited. The filter allowed it after the second save. This was my edit that was flagged:. I was removing an obsolete parameter, and the template wikitext is cleaner in the simplified form, producing the same visual result. I improved the template so the clumsy syntax was no longer necessary. I suppose I might have gotten a false positive due to the rapidity of my edits. I was ripping through quite a few of them, but was doing it fully manually, with several tabs with open article edits at a time. -J JMesserly (talk) 01:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

AjaxSmack
Filter has been disabled. --Conti|✉ 01:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Username
 * User:AjaxSmack


 * Page you were editing
 * History of the Anglo-Egyptian Condominium


 * Description
 * Attempted to alter the first two sentences of the current article to read: "This article discusses the history of Anglo-Egyptian Sudan during the history of Sudan from 1899 to 1955. In January 1899, an Anglo-Egyptian agreement restored Egyptian rule in Sudan but as part of a condominium, or joint authority, exercised by Britain and Egypt."


 * Date and time
 * Several minutes before 01:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Follow up
 * A second attempt to edit was successful. Please remove the restrictions from my account. —   AjaxSmack   01:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

saintrain
Filter has been disabled. --Conti|✉ 01:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Username
 * User:saintrain


 * Page you were editing
 * Tarn (lake)


 * Description
 * removed
 * ", Slovak: pleso" with edit summary of
 * "LOTS of languages have words for 'lake'"


 * Date and time
 * 01:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

What triggered this? Cheers Saintrain (talk) 01:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Spring12
Filter has been disabled. --Conti|✉ 01:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Username
 * User:Spring12


 * Page you were editing
 * []


 * Description
 * I was condensing a message to fellow editors by changing a list to a link with the same sources, and updating with new info regarding the topic. The comments and section where entirely my own; changed to make it easier for the reader to understand what I was saying.


 * Date and time
 * 01:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

62.133.26.134
Filter has been fixed. [ジャム] [ t -  c  ] 06:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Username


 * Page you were editing
 * Conficker


 * Description
 * Trying to correct the amount of Microsoft's bounty (It's $250,000, whilst the article listed $2,500. The original references stated the correct amount.


 * Date and time
 * 12:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments


 * This is an old hit. Please see the notice at the top of the page. The filter has been confirmed as bugged during the time you tried this edit. It should be corrected now. - Mgm|(talk) 20:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

81.23.56.24
[ジャム] [ t -  c  ] 06:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Username


 * Page you were editing
 * Category talk:Living people


 * Description
 * Reinserting accidentally deleted talk page sections. Mind you, I can't blame the filter for labelling it non-constructive, considering some of the drivel in there.


 * Date and time
 * 12:22, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments


 * Should be fixed now. --Conti|✉ 16:21, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

192.12.88.7
Valid capture case. [ジャム] [ t -  c  ] 06:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Username


 * Page you were editing
 * Palindrome


 * Description
 * Pointing out "poop" was a palindrome


 * Date and time
 * 21:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * Yeah, I know, I'm being a smart-aleck, and I know "poop" was common anon vandalism, but I pointed out how that could be a constructive edit in some situations.


 * I'm unconvinced of the validity of this as a false positive. I would understand if this edit was reverted were it allowed. { { Nihiltres | talk | log } } 21:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

charmedaddict
[ジャム] [ t -  c  ] 06:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Username


 * Page you were editing
 * Amsterdam Airport Schiphol


 * Description
 * Removing "Destinations by Regions" section as per WP:AIRPORTS consensus


 * Date and time
 * 18:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments


 * There are no log entries by that username (charmedaddict), did you make the edit while logged out or with another username? --Conti|✉ 16:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

This flag once was red
Valid capture case  [ジャム] [ t  -  c  ] 06:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Username


 * Page you were editing
 * Different Beat (Michelle McManus album)
 * Different Beat


 * Description
 * Reverting two edits by SSP, recreating page as a redirect per consensus. (Added 2009-03-04 14:29 (UTC): After reading some of the reports above, I tried saving the page anyway - but was again knocked back by the filter. I suspect that the filter is being triggered by the removal of a large amount of text (I'm reverting back to a redirect). A possible solution might be for the trigger to disregard edits that include #REDIRECT ?) This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 14:32, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Date and time
 * 18:23 (UTC) approximate


 * Comments


 * "McManus" was the cause of the false positive, you can guess why. It should be fixed now, hopefully. --Conti|✉ 16:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh! That actually hadn't occurred to me. All looks good now: I've reverted both articles (Different Beat (Michelle McManus album) and Different Beat). Thanks for your helps! This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 16:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

79.97.192.131
Filter is working correctly  [ジャム] [ t  -  c  ] 06:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Username


 * Page you were editing
 * Ger Brennan


 * Description
 * Trying to remove vandalism but could not save due to this warning


 * Date and time
 * 23:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments


 * Warning is only a warning. In the future you should ignore it, if you are removing vandalism. Ruslik (talk) 10:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

ZacharyKent
Valid capture case  [ジャム] [ t  -  c  ] 06:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Username


 * Page you were editing
 * Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard


 * Description
 * I was trying to add a signature and by pressing this repeatedly  and a warning sign appeared. ZacharyKent (talk) 17:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Date and time
 * 16:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments


 * The filter worked as intended. If you want to add signature add only one time. Ruslik (talk) 09:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

23:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Filter fixed  [ジャム] [ t  -  c  ] 06:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * User
 * various, e.g. User:Sanalameda


 * Page edited
 * various, e.g. User talk:Melromero


 * Description
 * Date and time
 * 23:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 23:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Filter 63, "abusive unblock denials"; the inner workings of which are unknown to us mere mortals. :) What is an "abusive unblock denial", anyway? Abusive unblock request, I could understand, get plenty of those here. But things like this, while unconstructive, don't seem to have anything to do with "unblock denial", abusive or otherwise. Is it simply looking for any new comment added to a user talk page with a denied unblock request on it? If so, that is somewhat silly as it is quite possible for said comment to be entirely unrelated ot the unblock -- 86.164.203.7 (talk) 22:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments
 * This has been fixed. Stifle (talk) 13:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

itzCarlin
No entries in filter, but more than likely working correctly. [ジャム] [ t -  c  ] 06:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Username


 * Page you were editing
 * April_17


 * Description
 * Trying to add "Poop For Peace" day for events. I am working on an article also. ref: http://www.poopreport.com/Peace


 * Date and time
 * 22:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * Can't find anything matching this in the abuse log, but if you were trying to add "poop" to an article, then it is working properly. Stifle (talk) 14:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Filter 29, 22:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
[ジャム] [ t -  c  ] 06:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Filter 29, "new user removing deletion templates". I see no evidence of deletion template removal in this edit. It could be an error in the diff generation for the abuse log, but as I am not permitted to see what the actual text of the revision is, I can't tell. Gurch (talk) 22:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No actions taken ("Actions taken: none"), editor should not have noticed the filter here, just a log for others to look at. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 18:11, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * A log that is next to useless if it's full of things that have nothing to do with deletion template removal. Can someone verify whether the user's edit actually removed the template, so we know whether the error is in the filter or if the abuse log is showing the wrong diffs? Gurch (talk) 20:23, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I looked at the history and the diff (which sysops can view here) was indeed a removal of a deletion template. I am not sure why didn't have the removed text. Stifle (talk) 13:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Filter 144, 17:38, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Not place to discuss this issue. [ジャム] [ t -  c  ] 06:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC) Filter 144, "hiding content of pages". I am not permitted to see the details of this filter, but I assume from what it has matched that it is looking for use of "display:none" and/or "visibility:hidden" in pages. However, there are many legitimate uses of these that are matching this filter, including user stylesheets, such as this edit, and templates, as seen in this edit. The second of these didn't even add the text -- it was already present in the template. This filter should be limited to articles only, or at the very least exclude templates and user stylesheets. I also see absolutely no reason why it should be private. Gurch (talk) 17:38, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * No actions taken ("Actions taken: none"), editor will not have noticed the abuse filter, just a log of edits for further attention. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 18:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I've been keeping track of this filter (I'm the one who wrote it) and I was aware of the false positives it generated in the first ten hits. I've modified the filter since then to try and remove these cases from occurring, specifically setting it to not trigger within one's own userspace or .css pages. Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 18:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * And it is private because...? Gurch (talk) 19:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * ... people who can read the filter can adapt their modus operandi to it to escape the filter? --Dirk Beetstra T  C 19:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Stop being so paranoid. And for that matter, stop using phrases like "modus operandi". People who want to mess up pages will always find some way to. It is obvious what the filter is trying to do, making it private doesn't stop that. What it does stop is contributors seeing exactly what it does, and thus being able to figure out what is wrong with it and how it can be fixed. Has it escaped your attention that this is a wiki? Gurch (talk) 19:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Has it escaped your attention that this wiki is under constant attack by vandals like Grawp, who have demonstrated that they will adapt their methods (since you don't like modus operandi) as soon as they know for certain what we're looking for? If you have an issue with the setup of Abuse Filter, this is not the place to bring it up. This page is for reporting false positives only. We appreciate that you've brought those false positives to our attention; we are aware of them and have taken steps to improve the filter. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 20:06, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * To clarify, this filter in particular is designed to combat a particularly sneaky type of vandalism that the vandal bots do not look for. Outside of .css pages, there is almost no rationale for making this sort of edit, hence the filter's existence. The vandal who has started using this in his attacks has already tried to make his edits less obvious; a private filter then is needed to ensure we are able to stay ahead of him so he does not continue to disrupt the site. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 20:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You and I both know that the only reason this filter system exists in the first place is the project's little arms race with Grawp. Now it's here, though, I'm going to do my level best to limit the damage it causes. Gurch (talk) 20:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, this is not the place to discuss this. Please take your grandstanding elsewhere. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 21:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Filter 65, 20:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Possible filter issue, but it is set to log only. [ジャム] [ t -  c  ] 06:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC) Filter 65, "Excessive whitespace". Nothing wrong with looking for that, but I don't agree with preventing edits like this one; yes, it would cause his message to render in monospace text rather than being indented the normal way but really, who cares? Let him do that and see the result for himself, if he cares to fix the error he'll do so. The edit cannot in any way be called "abuse". Gurch (talk) 20:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That filter is getting a lot of hits which might not be high-quality. Although it is log-only. Stifle (talk) 13:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Jayron32
Filter fixed  [ジャム] [ t  -  c  ] 06:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Username


 * Page you were editing
 * Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not


 * Description
 * Continuing a conversation with another editor about changing some wording at WP:NOT, specifically WP:IINFO. Seriously, though, shouldn't admins be exempt from all Abuse Filters?  I don't even know what set this one off.--Jayron32. talk . contribs  02:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Date and time
 * 02:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments


 * My mistake, fixed already, sorry. NawlinWiki (talk) 02:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Arxiloxos
Filter fixed  [ジャム] [ t  -  c  ] 06:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Username


 * Page you were editing
 * University at Buffalo, The State University of New York


 * Description
 * Attempting to undo an unsourced, unexplained change (possible vandalism) of a date, which prior IP editor 128.205.134.38 had changed from 1846 to 1999.


 * Date and time
 * 02:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * I'd go out on a limb to suggest that that's the same problem as the one immediately above this and was caused by an error. Stifle (talk) 14:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Nameless23
Filter fixed  [ジャム] [ t  -  c  ] 06:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Username


 * Page you were editing
 * Sharman Networks


 * Description
 * Wanted to fix formatting and code mistakes. See also: Talk:Sharman_Networks

19:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments
 * Well, you are right, filter79 contained an error, which I fixed. Ruslik (talk) 08:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Launchballer
Filter is working correctly, and editor is happy with the response. [ジャム] [ t -  c  ] 06:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Username


 * Page you were editing
 * User talk:Launchballer


 * Description
 * Adding an email address, unsure why I'm not supposed to add it. Additionally, the filter thinks I made two edits: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:AbuseLog?title=Special%3AAbuseLog&wpSearchUser=Launchballer&wpSearchFilter=&wpSearchTitle= Also whats filter 58?


 * Date and time
 * 15:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * Not an error, just a suggestion that adding your email address might attract huge volumes of spam. There are two entries because you attempted the edit twice, just got a warning first time.
 * Filter 58 is a filter to prevent personal attacks. Stifle (talk) 14:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. Is it okay for me to add this to the list of reviewed reports?--Launchballer (talk) 14:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

concorde4950
User blocked for vandalism. [ジャム] [ t -  c  ] 06:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Username


 * Page you were editing
 * galaxy


 * Description
 * fixing incorrect data


 * Date and time
 * 09:45, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments


 * Looks like a correct case of triggering this filter, as a review of your edits show that they appear to be vandalism.  [ジャム] [ t  -  c  ] 09:53, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I blocked this account indefinitely. Ruslik (talk) 07:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

carondelet
[ジャム] [ t -  c  ] 06:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Username


 * Page you were editing
 * Penelope_Trunk


 * Description
 * Wanted to add Controversy section with external link references to her own blog as well as to her own Twitter account and a third party blog.


 * Comments
 * Sorry, but I do not see any evidence that you edit this page of triggered any filter. Ruslik (talk) 08:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

NICusa
User does not exist. [ジャム] [ t -  c  ] 06:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Username


 * Page you were editing
 * e-democracy


 * Description
 * Want to add sections that provide more in depth information about e-democracy - forms of e-democracy, tools, citizen's roles, divided benefits and disadvantages section for easier formatting, added in benefits and provided additional external links.


 * Comments
 * You have triggered no filter. Ruslik (talk) 08:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)