User talk:108.5.196.213

November 2024

Please refrain from attempting to make unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been disallowed by an edit filter. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeatedly attempting to perform disruptive actions may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Synorem (talk) 01:27, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

@Synorem: You cannot see what the 108.5 IP added, those logs are private and you are not an EFH/EFM/admin/global AFH/AFM, therefore you do not know if it was disruptive,

please do not warn people for behaviour that you have no way of verifying. – IP in a ::/32 range, currently 2804:F14:8080:CA01:188E:F4F9:261F:8749 (talk) 18:52, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I do know it was disruptive, because as the warning implies, it was disallowed by an edit filter. It wasn't just tagged or warned, the action was entirely blocked.

The user knows what they've posted, so their options are to report the edit filter incident, or accept their actions amounted to disruptive.

Edit filters are specifically in place to prevent vandalism & further unconstructive edits. Constructive contributions do not trip edit filters as many times as this user had.

If you believe this edit filter was tripped without due cause (i.e. unconstructive editing), you may report this at WP:EFFPR Synorem (talk) 19:07, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

@Synorem: We have an entire board for reporting false positive, as you've mentioned, that's proof that false positives exist - you do not know if this is a false positive or not.

Here is an example of a report by me at UAA which was disallowed because the account I reported had a bad username: Special:AbuseLog/36940782. That was a constructive edit, you can't assume it was disruptive because a filter stopped it.

Also I've triggered a private filter before (I do not remember why), but it wasn't a disruptive edit: [1].

Unfortunately an username was reported by a different user at the time, for that private one, which caused the report I made after to be suppressed, so I don't actually remember what it was that set off the filter.

But all of that is just to say: Constructive edits do set off filters, you can't assume it was disruptive because false positives exist. Accusing people of bad behaviour they didn't do is an WP:ASPERSION.

– IP in a ::/32 range, currently 2804:F14:8080:CA01:188E:F4F9:261F:8749 (talk) 19:16, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

The warning was Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been disallowed by an edit filter., not that an edit that was disallowed by the filter is by default disruptive (otherwise it would say that in the disruptive editing policy). – IP in a ::/32 range, currently 2804:F14:8080:CA01:188E:F4F9:261F:8749 (talk) 19:19, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Ah I need to correct myself in one thing here: The bad username filter that I set off and used as an example no longer disallows edits at UAA, that was fixed. The private one I do not know though.

– IP in a ::/32 range, currently 2804:F14:8080:CA01:188E:F4F9:261F:8749 (talk) 19:26, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

An entire board that, as of right now, remains void of contributions from this IP or relating to this filter. I am not denying the existence of false positives: As you say, there is no way to review the filter from either side without further assistance. However, the edit filter being triggered itself, coupled with the lack of a report or request for clarification by this IP, implies no immediate contention regarding the nature of their actions.

While I acknowledge that constructive edits can occasionally trip filters, the frequency with which this particular user encountered the filter suggests a pattern inconsistent with constructive contributions. If the IP believes this is a false positive, the appropriate course of action would be to raise the issue at WP:EFFPR, where their concerns can be reviewed transparently by those with the necessary permissions.

Suggesting I am casting aspersions entirely overlooks the fact that I acted based on the available evidence presented to me. A disallowed action by the filter, paired with a lack of justification or follow-up by the user, reasonably warrants a warning about potentially disruptive behavior. A simple comment, false-positive report, or quite literally any rebuttal from the IP would have made me reconsider this warning. If you are specific on the wording of uw-disruptive2, the key phrase is 'Your edits appear to be disruptive' rather than 'Your edits are disruptive' implying that, again, the warning issuer is going off of the information that is apparent to them.

While I am assuming good faith, there is evidence that points towards the edits being unconstructive (that being the tripped edit filter on numerous occasions, lack of rebuttal/false flag report). The user’s only defense so far lies in a claim of constructiveness that has yet to be demonstrated given the context. Synorem (talk) 19:37, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

@Synorem: There is indications that they set off the filter because their report at UAA was very unusual (usually it's a single line, they made one with multiple lines and that uses inline citations).

You cannot assume that the fact that the person didn't report this at EFFPR means the edit was bad (again, this is an assumption, they could very well just be new and not have understood, they could have just not bothered), there ARE people who can see what the edit is, those are the people who should be giving warnings (if the filter hit is not visible). You cannot warn people for edits that you don't know are bad either, just because that says appears doesn't mean you can warn someone without seeing their edit (talking about an edit, not a filter log hit), the same principle applies to filter log hits.

If you do not believe me, because I sure don't know how to phrase this differently, please ask someone else experienced, before you warn more people for what I think is not a valid reason. – IP in a ::/32 range, currently 2804:F14:8080:CA01:188E:F4F9:261F:8749 (talk) 19:50, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

@Synorem: Here is what their edit filter hits were. – IP in a ::/32 range, currently 2804:F14:8080:CA01:188E:F4F9:261F:8749 (talk) 19:55, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I suppose, for the sake of civility, we’ll have to agree to disagree on this matter.

Unlike the examples you provided of yourself, the user in question was not attempting to create a report but to comment on one. The filter (like myself) acted based on the information it was given and deemed the edit unconstructive. What I find confusing is your apparent acceptance of the filter denying the user’s actions, yet my decision to issue a warning is viewed as 'invalid'.

A warning is not inherently an assumption of bad faith. If I believed the user was engaging in vandalism, spam, or persistent disruptive behavior as part of an LTA - and as per the filter comment - I would have escalated the matter to WP:AIV. Instead, my warning served its intended purpose: to inform the user that their repeated actions were being blocked by the system and to caution them that such attempts may not be permitted. I did not deem the edits unconstructive - the edit filter did. I am warning the user of this, and the edit filter will continue to remove the user's comment time and time again, as it did, if the user does not reword their comment. There is nothing in my warning template that was not applicable to this user: The filter deemed it unconstructive, the filter removed it, and the filter may continue to remove it. I played no part in that matter other than informing the user of this as to avoid confusion - going off the fact this user is brand new and may not even understand what a filter is.

If the user feels the filter acted in error, they can address it through the appropriate channels. Until such clarification arises, I stand by my decision to issue a warning based on the information available. Even the administrator comment does not provide me with anymore information than the filter comment already has; other than the user did not create a report. Synorem (talk) 20:14, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

---