Wikipedia talk:Edit filter/False positives/Archive 2

Bot Archiving

Can someone figure out how to get Cluebot or that other archive bot to archive the page automatically. Ive tried a few times and failed. Tim1357 ^talk 22:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Checking: --ANowlin: talk 23:09, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Done I set it to archive posts with no responses after 7 days (168 hours). Archives will show in the box once done. Someone should add a link to the old archives. --ANowlin: talk 23:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm? I think he was asking for how to get the Wikipedia:Edit filter/False positives/Reports page to be archived, not this one. —Soap— 23:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I thought it was auto-archived, but apparently not. I added the same template as I did to this one (except I hid the archive box since one already exists on the page. Should follow the same scheme. --ANowlin: talk 03:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you happen to know whether it will cause a problem that the actual content of the page is on Wikipedia:Edit filter/False positives/Reports, and only appears on Wikipedia:Edit filter/False positives as a transclusion? I think that Tim was putting the archive code on the subpage, but as he said, that didnt seem to work either. —Soap— 08:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, never mind, it looks like you already moved it. At 5 am Im not always very observant. We'll see what happens nonetheless, and thanks. —Soap— 09:08, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Is there a way to get rid of the listing of all the "archives" on the right, or at least make it be actually a listing of the archives instead of every page on Wikipedia? I tried changing parameters in the template and couldnt get anything to work that didnt also erase the archive box. —Soap— 23:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Someone who knows CluebotIII better needs to look at this. It should have archived by Year and Month. Not each individual name. I use Miszabot (and may convert this page) once I can. --ANowlin: talk 04:24, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you to Tim1357 for fixing the archiving system on this page; it remains to be seen whether it can be applied to the reports page (that's how this thread got started, after all; you tried this method over there and it presumably didnt work.) —Soap— 12:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Section heading levels

Did someone mess up the section headings? It looks like [1] is making them a level lower than they should be.  – mike@enwiki:~$  15:18, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it was a team effort by Shirik (talk · contribs), Ruslik0 (talk · contribs), and Luna Santin (talk · contribs), which suggests to me that it was deliberate. Level 3 headings take up less space, but I suspect that they may be behind the problems that are causing the page to not be archivable by bots such as MiszaBot. I have no preference personally, but I think the level-3 headers were deliberate. —Soap— 19:22, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

They are intentionally level 3 because they are transcluded into a section that is at a level 2 heading. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 18:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I guess another option is to remove the "Reports" section header completely and change it to level 2. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 18:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Should we blank frivolous reports or not?

Looking at the history of this page, I can see that some people revert frivolous reports and others answer them. I've gone back and forth between the two methods myself, and generally will only answer a bad-faith report if I think it's a convenient place to leave a warning message. Earlier this year, some admins would block the worst of the bad-faith reporters and I was advised to leave the bad-faith reports up for that reason. But we seem to have become less aggressive lately and that's okay with me (few of the IP's who were blocked were active editors anyway, so even if not blocked they tended to stop editing). I would tend to be in favor of being able to remove bad faith reports because leaving them in would fill up the page more quickly and thus lead to the archives also being filled more quickly. I'm not sure how many people will see this post but I want to hear anyone's opinions whether they commonly edit this page or not. —Soap— 18:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd say to note that the report is frivolous and include any action taken (for example, when I blocked a user as a result of a bogus report, I left a note to that effect). —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v PC/SP is a show-trial!)} 18:46, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Completely agree with both of you. Just a week ago, this board had over a hundred and fifty reports on it. Deleting bad faith reports certainly helps reduce the clutter. Although I also agree that this can be a convenient place to leave a warning. I'd say just leave it up to admins' discretion. Myself, I tend to only delete reports from rather trivial vandals; if someone claims that typing "FUCK FUCK PENIS SHIT PENIS" should be allowed through the fitler, I'm not going to bother with a warning. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:23, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Revert vandalism

I like the filter, but the warning it produces should perhaps mirror the wording of e.g. wp:MINOR better. Quote:

A check to the minor edit box signifies that only superficial differences exist between the current and previous versions. Examples include typographical corrections, formatting and presentational changes, rearrangement of text without modification of content, etc. A minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. An edit of this kind is marked in its page's revision history with a lower case, bolded "m" character (m).

I usually mark reversion of OBVIOUS vandalism - section blanking without edit summary, graffiti and such - as minor. In the cited paragraph, I think this is justified by the very last letter in the phrase superficial differences exist between the current and previous versions.--Nø (talk) 14:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Given that Huggle marks edits as minor by default I'd agree with you, but it seems that we are trying to affect a change in practice, including even Huggle users, by the use of this filter. I note there's no exemption for Huggle or any other anti-vandal tools, although there is an exemption for edit count, which would in effect exclude most Huggle users. I think, also, that the use of the plural form versions is intended to be a dual number: e.g. it could be rewritten as "superficial differences exist between the current version and the immediately preceding one". Which would exclude vandalism reversion. But then as I said, Huggle "minor"s everything by default, so I'd agree with you in my mind. —Soap— 14:34, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

About the plural "s", you are certainly right, and I'm wrong. But a bit further down in wp:MINOR, we find

Reverting a page is not likely to be considered minor under most circumstances. When the status of a page is disputed, and particularly if an edit war is brewing, then it is better not to mark any edit as minor. Reverting blatant vandalism is an exception to this rule.

So either the warning produced by the filter or wp:MINOR should be modified so they agree better - I think!--Nø (talk) 16:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Dimar Uy's Biography

Naocl

Hi! My name is Silaw Dimar Rosalijos Uy a.k.a. "Dimar Uy" for short... hehehe and I want to create my own website to be known all over the world... And that is it!!! This is my "Naocl" story goes.

"Naocl", great!!! I will name this for my new heavy metal band. That was thought for it...

Dimar Uy was born in Caloocan,Manila,Philippines. Her father was Dixton Uy and her mother was Maria Victoria "Marivic" Uy for short. She had a two brother named Borgy and Dib. Unfortunately, her brother Borgy Uy was died since June 02, 2007 because of the murder who killed went he is out on his work. But Dimar is trying to recover about the incident happened to her brother. Dimar Uy started to image herself in joining some bands, and she had first influenced by the Paramore. With the Paramore, Dimar Uy was being fan of it. The way she rocks, she head bangs, she everything but as a kid, it changed. She realized tha she to learn more on rocking as she known the band "Fly Leaf". " I think its good!" She said. As one of her friends on facebook, someone requires her to join again in band until she named it "Naocl". Naocl was a song from a Spanish Heavy Metal Band, the "Eths". So to learn more crashing guitars, fantastic drums and loudly long screamings, try "Naocl". :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DimarNaOCl (talk • contribs) 12:32, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Archiving

As I speak there's ~200 :L3 sections at the /Reports subpage. Should it be set up to automatically archive any sections that don't get a response w/in 72 hrs? —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!)}

Help

I got a "trigger" while posting material to contribute to a conversation between me and Newyorkbrad. Cconcern (talk) 13:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Archive

Should blatantly false reports even be archived? As I see it, this page has two uses — communicating with good faith users who were stymied by a filter, and finding problems with filters so they can be fixed. Leaving up reports like this does nothing but lengthen page load time and make it harder to find real reports. I think protocol here should be to remove unambiguously bad faith reports on sight, possibly combined with a message on the vandal's talk page. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 19:58, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I've added a warning to this effect. An editnotice might not go amiss either. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 04:47, 19 May 2011 (UTC)