User talk:ClueBot Commons

Praise should go on the praise page. Barnstars and other awards should go on the awards page.
Use the "new section" button at the top of this page to add a new section. Use the [edit] link above each header to edit that header.
ClueBot's owner or someone else who knows the answer to your question will reply on this page unless you request otherwise.

Beware! This user's talk page is monitored by talk page watchers. Some of them even talk back.

Cluebot, you're the worst!

Cluebot is worse than SkyNet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.114.127.165 (talk) 08:50, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, if you say so... - Rich(MTCD)^T|C|E-Mail 22:43, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Facepalm --The Σ ^talk_contribs 02:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

CBNG Poorly Scoring Itself

Hi CBNG team,

When recently chasing down a possible bug in STiki (see the related section on STiki's talk page), I discovered that CBNG occasionally scores its own reverts/edits very poorly (score = 1.0). I am sure there is some software-catch in place so that CBNG does not try to revert itself. However, these raw scores are still being published to the various feeds -- causing edits to be prominently enqueued in STiki, and forcing editors to inspect them (and sometimes causing confusion, as with the talk page discussion above).

I, of course, could implement some fixes in the STiki listener so that edits made by CBNG are never enqueued, regardless the score. However, the more elegant solution would seem to be for CBNG to implement a fix itself, perhaps reporting a score of "N/A" with the reason being "CBNG revert." This would benefit all those who do (or will ever) use these feeds. Let me know. Thanks, West.andrew.g (talk) 19:50, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

As far as I am aware currently in the spam channel it will list all edits even outside of the Main namespace. The reason it does not try and revert its self and cause a massive mess is due to a check in the action code which checks if the edit has been made by the user the bot is configured to run as.

I would suggest that CBNG scoring its own reverts makes sense - some people/tools may wish to use this information.

You could easily filter out these results by checking if "# User is myself" is present in the 'comments', an example revert is as below:

ClueBot NG * (-323) Reverting possible vandalism by 2.217.211.251 to version by 95.148.72.109. False positive? Report it. Thanks, ClueBot NG. (444473) (Bot) # 0.886183 # User is myself # Not reverted

I could ask Cobi next time I see him to look into this but I believe the 'comments' on an edit is there just for this purpose. - DamianZaremba ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:11, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, this is trivial for me to implement -- just thought you folks would like to know the pattern is occurring. Additionally, the IRC feed that STiki uses (#cluebotng-spam) is not being written to at current, although the bot is operational, and (#cluebotng-VAN -- or something like that) is publishing revert noticies. Thanks, West.andrew.g (talk) 15:26, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I noticed the RC bot is down at the moment for the spam channel - I asked one of the people with access to the server to restart it so it should be back up soon. I'm going to look into making the IRC feeds more stable and extending access to the data though APIs in the next few months when I have time. DamianZaremba ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:46, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Follow thru

Hi. I noticed your bot gave a recent vandalism warning to User talk:184.59.153.129. The warning came with several others both before and after, and there has been no follow thru, despite the user's continued vandalism. Could you please follow thru and block the IP, or would you recommend I go thru the admin. noticeboard? Thanks! X4n6 (talk) 20:42, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Achives a bit too quickly?

With this edit, ClueBot III archived a discussion that was not finished and had just been posted to less than 4 hours earlier. What's up with that? – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  12:05, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

bs

--The Σ ^talk_contribs 18:02, 4 June 2011 (UTC) NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOB