Wikipedia:Edit filter/False positives

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Username (talk · contribs) (filter log)
Page you were editing
Metronome (filter log) (user filter log)
Tried to add & alphabetize a few key Categories, for an article that I've been gradually & carefully cleaning up for several weeks. There hasn't been a single objection from the article's thousands of readers since I started these edits, or from the many human editors who keep the article on their watchlist and quickly revert any vandalism. These well-summarized edits are steadily making the article clearer, better organized, better illustrated, better referenced, more balanced, and (much) less repetitive. I have no idea why this particular Category edit triggered the bot's false alarm, and I hope a human will soon allow my constructive work to continue.
Date and time
20:22, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
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) 20:22, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Comment: I'll point out that an admin did look at your filtered edit and say "Looks fine."(diff) - but unfortunately an admin or other filter relevant role is required to actually see the edit you were making and either make the edit for you or alter the filter, so you will have to wait
I mean you could try describing what exactly the edit is that you want, but other editors might run into the same problem. – 2804:F14:80E5:6B01:F969:B861:B7FB:B942 (talk) 09:13, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the reply, though I still don't understand what's going wrong. If I recall correctly, my filtered edit simply tried to update the Category section to be (with double brackets around each, omitted here to avoid confusing the system):
Category:Dutch inventions
Category:German inventions
Category:Measuring instruments
Category:Rhythm and meter
Category:1815 introductions
Category:19th-century inventions
Category:Articles containing video clips
I can't imagine that these straightforward Categories triggered the mysterious "private" filter, after the much larger edits that I've made to this Metronome article. Several of my previous edits were tagged for "references removed" -- could this be why the filter ridiculously mentioned "Long-term pattern abuse" in this log? If so, then is it essentially imposing a ban that will summarily reject all my future attempts to edit, as an "IPvandal"?
If an A.I. bot crudely tallies an editor deleting 7 refs from an article through multiple edits, before wrongly accusing the editor of "abuse", someone needs to tell the bot to tally the same editor adding 6 refs to the same article. This should be a simple bug to fix, for the sake of basic fairness and common sense.
I also don't understand why "filter 61" tagged me as a "new user", in the same log. Even without knowing my decade of previous addresses, it should be easy for the filter to see that my current IP address alone has made hundreds of quality edits on English Wikipedia for more than a year.
Please, what can be done to "unvandalize" the IP address and get me back to work quickly? Many thanks for your help with this frustrating situation. — (talk) 07:08, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just to be clear: the abuse/edit filters don't use AI to check edits, they are just literal rules that your (specific) edit is put through and if it matches those rules it does something (tag, log, warn, disallow, etc), admittedly filters can be made to go off after a few matched edits in a timeframe, rather than just one, but the long-term abuse/LTA ones are rules that match things that one or more vandals, who have been abusing Wikipedia for often years, do to vandalise articles.
As to why the system considers you a "new user", it can't tell, IPs all have an age of 0, presumably because IPs can be shared, specially after years. The cons of not having an account.

Likely nothing is stopping you from doing other edits. – 2804:F14:80E5:6B01:A964:EF17:8C6D:EC09 (talk) 09:36, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks -- I took your suggestion and just tried to continue editing the article -- this time, without tripping any filters. So, it sounds like nobody has verified why my editing triggered the bot's "private" false report, which could easily happen again tomorrow.
For page protection purposes, I think a "new user" is someone who hasn't yet reached 4 days and 10 recent edits, or some such. Maybe the filter could do something similar with IP editors, to treat people a little more consistently?
And to help distinguish constructive editing from vandalism, before the LTA filter accuses an editor of abuse for multiple refs deleted, could we ask the filter first to tally & offset any refs added to the same article by the same editor? It's not right for the system automatically to disallow an editor by looking at just one side of the tally. — (talk) 22:12, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ @2804:F14:80E5:6B01:F969:B861:B7FB:B942: I should point out 2 things. First of all, the private LTA filter is the one that disallowed your edit, not the removal of references. I can't really help with that filter because neither am I not an admin nor do I have the EFH rights.
Secondly, I believe that your issue with filter 61 (hist · log), the removal of references filter, is in this line rcount("(<ref\b[^>]*\>)", removed_lines) > rcount("(<ref\b[^>]*\>)", added_lines), which could be changed to (rcount("(<ref\b[^>]*\>) - rcount("(<ref\b[^>]*\>)", removed_lines)) > -2, or greater than than some specified integer value.
I don't think this is perfect, and I'll leave it up to the reviewing EFMs to decide what they want to do. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 22:41, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Honestly, discussing the filter on here is almost off-topic, the references removed filter is just for tagging edits, if a reference is removed in an edit, it tags the edit so it can be searched for that specifically in Special:RecentChanges. It does what it needs to.
I fear, if we keep making this post bigger, that the few admins that come here will miss that this needs admin attention because they will assume it's being handled, when it's not.
2804:F1...49:7F62 (talk) 01:37, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In fact, let's just ping @Zzuuzz as the last admin who worked on the "Long-term pattern abuse"58 (hist · log) filter. – 2804:F1...49:7F62 (talk) 01:59, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pinned – This thread has been pinned and will not be archived until this template has been removed. Nobody (talk) 07:33, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


2402:800:620F:3B80:C64C:9370:3376:7A3E (talk · contribs) (filter log)
Page you were editing
Page not specified
Date and time
05:13, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
No filters triggered recently. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 07:07, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


2601:401:8201:78A0:94F8:2AFD:6376:5522 (talk · contribs) (filter log)
Page you were editing
MoneyGram (filter log) (user filter log)
Date and time
10:17, 3 March 2024 (UTC)


Safeandsecure4 (talk · contribs) (filter log)
Page you were editing
Draft:Safe and Secure Trading Company (filter log) (user filter log)
Date and time
10:33, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
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) 10:33, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


2409:40D1:8A:2A0E:F42F:8DB3:EE5D:EC82 (talk · contribs) (filter log)
Page you were editing
Punjab, India (filter log) (user filter log)
Date and time
11:54, 3 March 2024 (UTC)