User talk:ClueBot Commons/Archives/2018/May

Closing threads early

Hi Rather than wait for the X hours to be over, is there anyway I can flag a thread saying ClueBot you fiend, take me now :-) Or seriously I would like to mark a thread as closed and it gets out archived after say 2 weeks to give a chance for people to unclose it . Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 11:12, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

See 3.2 - Optional Parameters of the User:ClueBot III page :) - - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 19:54, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Is missing the previous bad edit an error?

In this edit (ID 3369874), ClueBot reverted an obvious vandalism, but reverted it to a previous version that had also been vandalized (here) by a closely related IPV6 anon. Is the bot normally able to look back two or more edits like this - or can I assume that the first change was not sufficiently bad to trigger action? David Brooks (talk) 23:52, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

The bot only looks at a single revision at any given time. If it triggers a revert, it will issue a rollback which will revert the latest revisions by that user to that article. So, the old edit wasn't caught for whatever reason, and so it rollback'd to that edit. -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 00:03, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

OK, thanks. The reason would have been the difference between 2600:8803:8403:cc00:c4af:dc89:5a9:bd94 and 2600:8803:8403:cc00:3974:fa0:2035:b7d9. Probably the same user but a new lease, or two nearby terminals. David Brooks (talk) 01:07, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

A tall one for you!

Cheers mate! CancerianOx (talk) 07:22, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

There is a systemic bias against all anonymous edits by ClueBot

Good faith edits that were sound used to be encouraged in this project even if made by anonymous editors. Why doesn’t WP:Goodfaith apply to bots? The revert and accusation of the Shooting of Walter Scott was totally uncalled for. 2606:A000:6443:6800:6D57:8F15:11A4:B482 (talk) 07:02, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Another reason bots use is dangerous. The source removed by me was an original source with original synthesis. The edit I made was in the direct spirit of abiding by WP:Synthesis. If a bot is going to be used, it should scan for language in the edit summary, the talk page, and the content of the edit (I removed one or two sentences that were problematic as it used an original source for synthesis. I did not remove an entire section.). I don’t think a bot is going to have the same attention to detail that a human editor will in patrolling recent changes. 2606:A000:6443:6800:6D57:8F15:11A4:B482 (talk) 07:17, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I see no instance in your linked contributions where ClueBot NG has reverted you. -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 21:19, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Cobi I suspect that the IP may be referring to this edit. --5 albert square (talk) 23:41, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

You should, instead of thinking that the bot has something against you personally, report false positives here rather than making such incredibly broad, strange, and incorrect claims. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 01:17, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

The original post never alleges that the Cluebot has a personal vendetta. The original post clearly insinuates, and reasonably so, that ClueBot NG has a systemic bias against the class of anonymous editors. That is a very reasonable and accurate statement, and not a personal or strange attack. 2606:A000:6443:6800:8C36:840E:56E6:838 (talk) 01:55, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Incapable of reporting false positive

Yesterday, I tried to report the edit

01:15, 5 May 2018‎ ClueBot NG ...(Reverting possible vandalism by 49.217.55.155 to version by Drmies. ... (3370006)

at Duodecimal, which I consider a false positive.

I was logged in, used the above ID, was addressed as "anonymous", changed to my username, provided a comment, resolved a Captcha, and submitted.

As a result I was again addressed as anonymous, left it unchanged, resolved again a Captcha, submitted again, and the procedure started anew. Now checking the bot question sufficed (no pic), and submitting restarted the procedure, that I now ended by closing the tab.

Today, seeing no effects, and after visiting the FAQ, I consider my efforts as traceless, and humbly ask for advice how to deal effectively with this reporting. Purgy (talk) 07:16, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Purgy Purgatorio: you did report the false positive. Your later attempts have been registered as comments, since the report already existed. The report can be seen here. L293D (☎ • ✎) 03:01, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for making this clear. It would have eased my understanding

• to have feedback about having successfully launched the first report (I wouldn't have densely commented on and on),
• to know about this second level of anonymity wrt ClueBot,
• to have the link you provided for checking the report.

I apologize for being dense in certain circumstances. Purgy (talk) 06:44, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Guess What

Say hello to my little friend Player2847582 00:09, 4th May 2018 (UTC)

Shellwood is an established contributor to Wikipedia. Please change your signature. L293D (☎ • ✎) 00:13, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Alright Player2847582 (talk) 00:17, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

ClueBot III eats month headers at the Resource Exchange

See, for example, this edit (good-bye, November 2017) and this one (farewell, May 2018). Is there a way we can prevent this? Maybe III would enjoy more frequent walks, or a new toy. (shakes bag of tempting bot treats) BlackcurrantTea (talk) 11:01, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

From User_talk:ClueBot_Commons/Archives/2017/April#Improper_archival_of_heading,_part_3, Cobi writes: The headerlevel parameter designates the level of header that is expected for a new discussion, and the bot treats all wiki markup between the first header of the specified level to the next header of the specified level as one discussion. Discussions should all be of the same level header and mixed-level headers denoting different discussions is not supported at this time. Looking at this edit, the headerlevel parameter was "2" so the bot will treat all sections that begin with a level two header as a discussion thread, and it will treat everything below that as being part of the same discussion until it reaches the next level two heading. It archived the "May 2018" level one heading because it was not a level two heading, so the bot considered it to be part of the discussion above it. It stopped only when it saw the next level two heading, which was titled "May 21, 1978 St. Louis Globe-Democrat article on Dee Boeckmann". Cobi writes: ClueBot III was not designed to handle multiple categories of discussion on the same page. Either the page needs to be reformatted (perhaps into transcluded sub-pages? Those work well with CB3), or you need to figure out a different archive strategy. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 16:22, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Pinging BlackcurrantTea because I somehow forgot to do that. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 16:23, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

K6ka, thank you for the clear and detailed explanation. I'll have to give it some more thought, but for now I'm going to leave it alone. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 07:51, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	This bot has repeatedly reverted common vandalism in mere seconds. For this, I am awarding them the Defender Barnstar. JuniorRocketScientist (talk) 11:00, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Bot flag not set

From User:ClueBot NG/FAQ#Edits:

Anti-vandal bots do not perform precise, exact work like most other bots do. They act more like humans, with most edits correct and good, but a small percentage of mistakes. Bot edits show up as (unflagged) human edits so they can be reviewed for possible mistakes if necessary, like other human edits.

And yet I still don't want to see them when I filter my watchlist. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ What then was the point of all the effort spent on improving watchlist filtering?  — Scott • talk 12:14, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

This isn't specific to CBNG (in fact anti-vandal bots have been doing this for quite a while). Perhaps this would go better at WP:VPT? —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 10:50, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

False positive tool not loading

I noticed a false positive reversion by ClueBot, but the page for reporting false positives is repeatedly timing out. The revert ID is 3386859. Natureium (talk) 13:58, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Natureium I just tried it myself and seems to be working ok for me. So I've reported the ID for you :)--5 albert square (talk) 04:44, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Dutch vandalism

Not sure if this helps at all, but it would be very difficult to understand for someone who doesn't speak Dutch why this is vandalism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SoundCloud_rap&diff=842601451&oldid=842601238

A user added "damien ze kkr moeder" to a list. (but, how appropriate, with "citation needed" tag) Damien is just a name, "moeder" is mother, "ze" means "z'n" means "zijn" means "his". (shitty grammar, like using "me" instead of "my" in English) but the difficult part is "kkr". "Kkr" means "kanker" means "cancer". (the disease) Dutch is one of the few if not the only language in which various diseases can be used as swearwords. We also have tyfus (typhus), tering (tuberculosis), klere (cholera) and de pest (the plague).

Later this was followed by:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SoundCloud_rap&diff=842601650&oldid=842601507 (replaced it with Zwarte Piet)

I've noticed things like that before. If you look at individual edits (and don't know Dutch) this would be hard to catch, but when you notice the name of an artist changes it becomes clear without a doubt it was made up. I don't know if ClueBot already looks at such things. Alexis Jazz (talk) 23:41, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

How could this slip?

Hi. I was wondering, how could this edit go unnoticed by clie, and huggle? Also pinging Petrb. —usernamekiran(talk) 23:03, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

As per the note at the top of the page, ClueBot is unable to catch all the vandalism, it does catch the majority though. If it misses some, just revert the editor and warn them.--5 albert square (talk) 23:10, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Please stop reverting me while I am working on this. This is so disruptive! How is it possible for anyone to work on a page here when it gets reverted every few minutes! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hushoney (talk • contribs) 02:17, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Hushoney Please take note of what it says at the top of this talk page - this user is not human. It is a Wikipedia robot, a computer program designed to detect and revert possible vandalism. ClueBot NG reverted you for this edit which is all in capital letters. I'm not saying that you are a vandal, however as I'm sure you can appreciate vandals will commonly use capitals when vandalising the encyclopedia. ClueBot NG has detected the capitals and reverted you. If it wasn't vandalism, please follow the instructions the bot left you to report it and feel free to remove the bot's message from your talk page.--5 albert square (talk) 13:28, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

About talk archives

{{atop}} Why ClueBot III is not creating index? ‐‐1997kB (talk) 15:04, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Cobi or Rich Smith might be best to answer this.--5 albert square (talk) 15:12, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

1997kB is your issue now resolved? Looking at the thread below, Cobi has been doing some work on the talk page archives.--5 albert square (talk) 01:26, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

5 albert square Doesn't look like solved to me, this page is still the same. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 04:30, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Ah OK, I'll leave this discussion open for Cobi to look into--5 albert square (talk) 07:00, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

@5 albert square: Looks like it has been solved, you can close it. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 06:49, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.