Wikidata:ORES/Report mistakes

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

List[edit]

List here. Please include revision id (or a link to the diff) and why you think it's misclassified. Thanks :) Amir (talk) 21:49, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Special:Diff/269077027 - This is the deletion of a page on a local wiki. That can't be vandalism as it's something only a local admin can do. When a page is deleted, the sitelink needs to be removed to. In this case it's an automated deletion of the sitelink because of the page being deleted and not a user mannually removing a link. Mbch331 (talk) 22:10, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
✓ Done Added in PR#13, it may take a while to work in wikidata Amir (talk) 16:58, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Special:Diff/269077025 - Same as above. Mbch331 (talk) 22:10, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
✓ Done Same as above
Special:Diff/269086457 - We do get a lot of vandalism of Commons category statements, but in this case, the edit is fixing the way the category name was entered (changing "Category:Name" to "Name" is also fine). - Nikki (talk) 23:46, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm trying to find out best way to include them. Amir (talk) 16:58, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Special:Diff/251530750 - This is just adding a reference, it doesn't look suspicious to me. - Nikki (talk) 23:46, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Same as above Amir (talk) 16:58, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Special:Diff/243937491 - This is just adding a sitelink, it doesn't look suspicious to me. There are quite a few more similar sitelink additions on Triton (Q3359) which are marked. - Nikki (talk) 23:46, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Again Amir (talk) 16:58, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Special:Diff/269090263 - Here I'm undoing bad edits. :P - Nikki (talk) 23:59, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
✓ Done Added in PR#13, it may take a while to work in wikidata Amir (talk) 16:58, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Special:Diff/269093456 - Here too. - Nikki (talk) 23:59, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
✓ Done Same as above Amir (talk) 16:58, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Special:Diff/257856652 - This is adding an item (with sitelinks, not that the diff shows it), it doesn't look suspicious to me. It seems like a lot of item creations are being flagged. - Nikki (talk) 23:59, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
✓ Done AgainAmir (talk) 16:58, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Special:Diff/237999679 - This is a bot fixing the way the value was entered (similar to the Commons category example above). - Nikki (talk) 00:42, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Let me think Amir (talk) 16:58, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Special:Diff/210649590 - Creation of an item with sitelinks. The sitelinks are to the main namespace on the linked wikis, so it isn't vandalism. Mbch331 (talk) 09:50, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
✓ Done Amir (talk) 16:58, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Special:Diff/269186604 - Anonymous IPv6 user is adding a valid id for an external site. Nothing wrong with the addition. Mbch331 (talk) 11:54, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Let me think of a way to handle that Amir (talk) 16:58, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Special:Diff/253584599 - Tobias1984 added a claim that water melts at 0 C - can't see why it's flagged. Actually it seems to flag EVERY change on water (Q283) in red? ArthurPSmith (talk) 20:18, 6 November 2015 (UTC)'
✓ Done It was because of bad scaling in some features, Fixed in PR #16 Amir (talk) 19:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
I made a bunch of edits to Q37628 where I added information about awards but every edit is flagged. I can't understand what I did wrong here. Diff https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q37628&type=revision&diff=269609233&oldid=269436364 --Pajn (talk) 21:58, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
✓ Done Same situation as above, so it's fixed in PR #16 Amir (talk) 19:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Special:Diff/270093221 - I corrected the IMDB id which first contained the Wikidata-item id and I added the correct IMDB id. Mbch331 (talk) 20:44, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Special:Diff/270818476 (will probably not work, because the item has been deleted) - User added the statement instance of (P31)  unknown value (the special snakvalue for unknown). This can never be correct for instance of (P31). This edit wasn't tagged, however can be considered vandalism. Mbch331 (talk) 13:24, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Special:Diff/274775730 - This was part of a series of edits renaming a set of pages (see [1]) and for some reason this particular one was flagged even though the rest weren't. - Nikki (talk) 11:19, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Special:Diff/275681784 - This one didn't get tagged, it did however fire the abusefilter for violating the format constraint. (It got labelled as such.) Mbch331 (talk) 06:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Per recent improvements it now give 93% to this one :) Amir (talk) 11:32, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Special:Diff/280048919 - I added a lot of information at once using WE Framework. This is information I got either from a Wikipedia or external source like IMDb. (Or a combination of those) Mbch331 (talk) 09:00, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
✓ Done It was a bug and fixed now. it takes a while to go live. Amir (talk) 16:27, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Special:Diff/284410798 - I'm importing an image that's used in an infobox on a local wiki (in this case nlwiki) using an automated tool, adding it to the correct property, so it can't be vandalism. Mbch331 (talk) 09:46, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
✓ DoneIt now gives 69% Amir (talk) 11:32, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Special:Diff/288313534 - This seems to be an automated edit to move the sitelink when a page moves on a wikipedia (svwiki here). The page move on svwiki looks reasonable itself. [2] Silverfish (talk) 11:33, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Most edits to Q16943273 are tagged as revert, but this appears to be a sandbox item, meant for newbies to play around with. I think it would be best to exclude it from your dataset, as it seems it wouldn't be representative of the way people edit normal items. I've seen it as part of the Edit Labels datasets, but it doesn't seem meaningful to label edits as it is impossible to vandalise, and Good Faith doesn't really apply. Silverfish (talk) 12:33, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Special:Diff/298408547 - It is a proper addition of a Wikipedia sitelink. --Allan Aguilar (talk) 21:22, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Special:Diff/313537693 - This is me adding a label without login. Obviously, IP edits are suspicious but this one adds a missing label which matches a label in other similar languages. Classifying it with 0.98125 revert probability looks wrong. It looks like IP is given too much weight in the tool. --Laboramus (talk) 22:54, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Special:Diff/317404875 - should score more highly. --Haplology (talk) 12:40, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
as should Special:Diff/317397121 -- vastly different contexts, or in other words absurd on its face, at least to a human being, and Special:Diff/317467845 -- a logical impossibility. These are of course constraint violations, but nobody seems to care about those. Anybody who tries to fix constraint violations steps into a minefield of exceptions known only to a select in-group of self-appointed experts who feel entitled to summarily undo edits that violate their own private, unwritten notions of how properties are to be used. --Haplology (talk) 01:03, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
[3] is at least a good faith edit (though I'm not sure it's entirely correct). --Izno (talk) 12:16, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

317404875 is 98% isn't it enough? Amir (talk) 02:54, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

317397121 is 97% 348417851 is 90% but lower than all thresholds in ORES review tool (= ORES review won't pick this up)
Special:Diff/373494992 - should most likely be much lower than "84% reverted", as per here. --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 03:54, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Reverted model is old (See this page for more info). What really matters is the score in damaging model which returns 2%. I suggest you to use ORES review tool Amir (talk) 05:32, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Special:Diff/547587933 - The NOS website now uses TLS by default. Since it's more secure to use HTTPS than HTTP, I changed it to HTTP, but got reverted by this bot. 84.245.6.76 22:10, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
[4] does not look like vandalism to me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:39, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps someone can explain to me why I keep getting reverted by this criteria (and hopefully fix the criteria):

Thank you, 50.53.1.21 03:56, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Improvements[edit]

Diff id Damaging Old score Score1 Score2 Score3 1st improv. 2nd 3rd Overall
210649590 No 91% 30% 5% 0% +61% +25% +5% +91%
237999679 No 84% 71% 63% 60% +13% +8% +3% +24%
243937491 No 95% 46% 74% 71% +49% -28% +3% +24%
251530750 No 91% 55% 56% 55% +36% -1% +1% +36%
253584599 No 99% 89% 78% 70% +10% +11% +8% +29%
257856652 No 91% 30% 4% 1% +61% +26% +3% +90%
269077025 No 91% 82% 64% 73% +9% +18% -9% +18%
269077027 No 91% 89% 79% 86% +2% +10% -7% +5%
269086457 No 98% 100% 74% 71% -2% +26% +3% +28%
269090263 No 95% 100% 81% 76% -5% +19% +5% +19%
269093456 No 89% 99% 49% 44% -10% +50% +5% +45%
269186604 No 95% 100% 84% 71% -5% +16 +13% +24%
269609233 No 89% 88% 46% 58% +1% +42% -12% +31%
270093221 No 92% 98% 40% +48% -6% +58% -8% +44%
274775730 No 84% 87% 93% 64% -3% -6% +29% +20%

From [5] and [6]. I'll check to improve it Amir (talk) 23:04, 4 December 2015 (UTC)