Jump to content

User talk:ClueBot Commons/Archives/2011/April

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Reply form 2.96.193.79

You say:

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, but at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Glasgow, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted (undone) by ClueBot NG.

I say:
I'm not quite sure how this works, but this PC connects through TalkTalk, and as far as I know, and I've done tests, our IP Address changes every time (or so I thought) we connect. However, as you can see, we still have (or have once again been alloctaed - is maybe what has happened - which is why I just see your message now) the same IPA as was vandalising back in early January. Odd. It's almost definitly true to say that no one in this household would make any comment regarding Rangers or Celtic - none of us care (although we do live in Glasgow), so we are not the culprit. Just thought I should let you know. 2.96.193.79 (talk) 22:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello
If that's the case it sounds as if you've got a message from ClueBot NG that was destined for another user. That can sometimes happen, especially if you are assigned a new IP address every time you log on. If that's the case please accept ClueBot NG's apologies :) --5 albert square (talk) 23:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

ClueBot's Warnings

I was blocking this user when I noticed this. You will see there that another user already gave PowerFiddle a final warning. However when ClueBot reverted another edit the Bot has simply given another level 4 warning instead of reporting the user? --5 albert square (talk) 23:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, as you'll see here, the bot reset to a level one warning rather than issuing a level four, although a level three warning had been issued just seven minutes prior. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
I was in the middle of clearing up the mess in Kit Kat's history and decided to check the IP that ClueBot was warning and found the warnings all wrong. If you look here you will see that the first editor gave the IP a level 1 warning, when ClueBot came along and edited a few minutes later, the Bot simply repeated the level 1 warning. The same editor then gave the IP a level 2 warning, then ClueBot came along a few minutes later and just issued another level 2 warning, yet by then the IP should have really been up to level 4 if the Bot had marked all the warnings correctly. I've removed the Bot's last warning and replaced it with a level 4 one but thought I'd mention it because it's almost as if the Bot is only recognising it's own warnings.--5 albert square (talk) 00:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Review Interface Dump (per archives)

(Repost from archives) Hi again, CBNG team. I've noticed that the bot has been down for several days. I hope everything is okay on that front. I am writing to see if I can get a copy of data produced by the review interface -- so that I can use it to refine STiki's training. Just a simple "RID,{0,1}" CSV file would more than suffice. Thanks, West.andrew.g (talk) 19:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd also be interested in getting a copy of the CBNG source-code. Besides curiosity, it would be nice to get a look at the bot's warning logic, s.t. I can better interface my own tool. Thanks, West.andrew.g (talk) 21:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC). (Repost from archives) West.andrew.g (talk) 03:34, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Source code is available here - if you grep though the code you should find some bits that let you pull data from the review interface out as xml. There is a pretty simple api around it which is actually how the training scripts gets data. DamianZaremba (talk • contribs) 17:56, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

IRC Feeds

Hi team... I've noticed that the bot has been up-and-down recently. Any reason why the IRC feeds have not been restarted? Thanks, West.andrew.g (talk) 01:30, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to pile on, but I'll just say that the CBNG-STiki collaboration is one of the more exciting things I've seen on Wikipedia in the last 2 years, and I think it could stealthily transform how things operate here--more than it already has. Please keep up the great work on it, and let others know if they can lend a hand. Thanks! Ocaasi c 23:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
CBNG team, could someone please ping Cobi/Crispy to this effect? I've been poking my head into CBNG IRC without much luck. If there is some qualm that is holding this up -- please, let me know -- so that I can adjust things accordingly. Let's please get this fixed so Wikipedia can benefit. Thanks, West.andrew.g (talk) 13:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
I'll give Cobi a poke, everyone has just been very busy recently D: DamianZaremba (talk • contribs) 18:26, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks to whomever took care of this -- I see they are up and running. Thanks, West.andrew.g (talk) 00:09, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Not archiving

I installed Cluebot III on my talk page. It eventually did archive the last 2 posts to my talk page. However, it ignored all of the previous years of talk page entries. I tried adding the tag to get it to archive now, that did not work. Is there a way to force it to archive my whole page? I tried making my own archive page with the date following the cluebot format and it did not put that link on the box. Thanks Golgofrinchian (talk) 15:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion/question

A couple of times in my vandalism patrolling, I've noticed that some of the edits ClueBot reverts seem to be test edits and/or first edit mistakes. While this is not bad in and of itself, the fact that they get labeled vandalism is not the best thing. I'm wondering if there's any way for there to be an "assume good faith" feature added, where ClueBot labels some of its reverts as reverting test edits instead of vandalism if they fit certain parameters common to test edits but not to vandalism? I realize this might not be possible, but if it is, this would be more AGF-y — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 18:19, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Is this a case of AGF edit testing? Either way, ClueBot should've detected it but did not. --bender235 (talk) 00:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Since it's the user's first edit and it had the marks of a typical test edit (italic text, etc.) and did not seem to be deliberately trying to mess up the article or add negative content, I would label it a test edit.
Maybe some things ClueBot could check would be whether or not it's the IP's or user's first few edits and also check the edit for things like (italic text), etc.
Also, if ClueBot is creating a user's talkpage (i.e., first message), ClueBot should probably use {{subst:welcomevandal}} instead of a flat-out warning. — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 03:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I suggested something similar myself a few months ago and even offered to design a welcome template especially for ClueBot but I got told that the first warning was friendly enough. --5 albert square (talk) 21:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

User:68.188.41.18

Hello ClueBot. You did a good job of reverting this user's vandalism to gap year, but on the users's talk page you put a new section heading for March 2011 underneath comments that were already under a March 2011 heading. I think the result is that the level of warning you used was not severe enough to reflect the amount of vandalism this IP address has committed this month.

I'm quite a new user, so I’m not quite sure how to fix this in this case. TehGrauniad (talk) 14:49, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. View the various vandal warning templates here: {{uw-vandal1}}, {{uw-vandal2}}, {{uw-vandal3}}, {{uw-vandal4}}, {{uw-vandal4im}}. Cheers! – Ajltalk 15:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi! Thanks for sorting this out and for the advice! TehGrauniad (talk) 00:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
That's something to do with the Bot and it's something Cobi will need to look at when he has time. I've reported it here before so I'm sure he's aware of it.--5 albert square (talk) 21:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Revert

I reverted ClueBot because of this. It reverted an edit that was not vandalism and that reversion I put here was vandalism. WayneSlam 00:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes ClueBot went to revert the vandalism but the reversion went through at the same time as another IP was making the edit! I've had that edit conflict happen to me before :)--5 albert square (talk) 00:22, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
I also removed the warning on the IP's talk page too because of this. WayneSlam 00:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Archival Duplicate Nightmare

We've had a bit of an issue at the Edit Filter page, where Cluebot III was repeatedly archiving the same records without removing them from the False Positives page. I've posted more information, as well as what I've done so far to fix it, at Wikipedia talk:Edit filter. Thanks! UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:58, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Leipzig

your revert was correct, the edit from the IP was vandalism, because of the mix of English and German ("stimmt nicht")... --Wolf170278 (talk) 07:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Brianne Siddall- Gundam 0080 Correction

I edited this page as the actress Brianne Siddall did portray the role that was mentioned, she was credited by another name, which was common place in anime. Most anime pages on Wikipedia that i've read at least, would let the reader know of the actor's real name and let the reader know if they were credited by an allias. I think that my edit was acurate, so I can't understand why it would be reverted back to the allias? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.157.207 (talk) 23:43, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi
If you believe that your edit was correct, then please report it as a false positive so the bot can be trained. Thanks.--5 albert square (talk) 23:53, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Possiable Confusion on Rothschild articles

I am deleting racist miteral on these articles, adn you are interfereing with my progress, please stop. --96.38.173.3 (talk) 15:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Ignore this, cb reverted their deletion vandalism. Zakhalesh (talk) 15:35, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not vandalizing that this user is out of line.--96.38.173.3 (talk) 15:42, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

See WP:VANDAL - deleting sourced content is vandalism. Zakhalesh (talk) 15:46, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Detection failure on Freshwater fish

ClueBot NG detected and reverted this vandalism edit, but did not detect this more obvious one on the same article from the same IP. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

ClueBot will not revert an article more than once every 24 hours. This is why the second instance was not reverted. - Rich(MTCD)Talk Page 18:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Cluebot III down

Looking at Cluebot III's contributions, it appears that CB3 has not been running for a week now. – Ajltalk 15:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Gramercy Riffs (band)

To the bot owner: it seems reverts have been made by the bot to Gramercy Riffs (band) which now seem legit. They were done by unverified users. After discussion with User_talk:Paul_Erik#Gramercy_Riffs_.28band.29, I concur with the changes made. I made a null edit here [1]. Is that enough to stop the bot from further reverts at this time? Argolin (talk) 05:15, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The answer you are looking for is just two sections above this one. Or alternatively, check this revision. Hope that answers it for you. Cheers! – Ajltalk 06:15, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Gioia

I added a Gioia to the Gioia page what's wrong with that?71.142.74.66 (talk) 06:39, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

It appears the the person's page you added has been nominated for speedy deletion. Please wait for that to be resolved. – Ajltalk 06:53, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
John Gioia has never been nominated for CSD, the article has been re-prodded multiple times in clear violation of the prod policy. Also, the level 3 warning is grossly inappropriate because the previous warnings are simply WRONG. Monty845 17:48, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
My apologies. I misread the deletion notices and/or miscommunicated. I rather should have said "nominated for speedy deletion". Excuse me. – Ajltalk 01:39, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Again, pretty sure that article has never been so nominated. Monty845 01:41, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Vincelord

I came across the edit you removed three years ago from 76.226.152.225 about actor Roscoe Orman that said he played a pimp in the 1973 movie Willie Dynamite, You removed that comment as possiable vandalism, But i came upon this films Wikipedia page and i also checked the film on youtude and i feel this edit was unfairly removed as vandalism when it is in fact true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vincelord (talk • contribs) 16:12, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

...and if you look at the current Willie Dynamite page now, it does indeed state that. Anyone interested in what role Roscoe Orman played in that film can click the wikilink to the film and find out. – Ajltalk 19:06, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Cluebot III down (still)

Looking again at Cluebot III's contributions, it appears that CB3 has not been running for another week now. – Ajltalk 15:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Dear Cluebot,
We miss you. Get well soon.
Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 02:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Archive Now not working?

It seems CB3 is not acknowledging the Archive Now parameter on my talk page? I added it several days ago (with appropriate template). What's more, is I believed that it checked timestamps, in which case, the thread the template tag is placed is out of date anyway. – Ajltalk 05:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Meh. I archived it myself. – Ajltalk 23:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I've pointed this out to Cobi - It looks like the cronjob isn't running properly. DamianZaremba (talk • contribs) 21:18, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Reviewer signup problem?

I've tried several times in the last few weeks to volunteer as a dataset reviewer. I have a Google account, and I can get as far as the page saying "Your request has been stored. An admin will review it shortly." — but no one has ever replied to me. Can anyone help me find out if my requests are being lost somehow, or if I'm considered unsuitable as a reviewer for some reason? Thanks. Richwales (talk · contribs) 05:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Cobi reviews requests every couple of weeks (he is quite busy) - if you don't get a reply then for some reason your request was probably either a) declined or b) for some reason didn't get though (unlikely). DamianZaremba (talk • contribs) 21:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Your account was approved by myself - Rich(MTCD)Talk Page 14:44, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Just as a note to anyone else reason this we now have multiple people who are notified and in charge of review account signups and moderations/processing of false positive reports so there should be fewer delays in future. DamianZaremba (talk • contribs) 14:50, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Error message on report page

When I tried to report a false positive according to the instructions, I entered the cluebot code 367296 and got an error. Please complete the report. Thnx. 75.47.129.31 (talk) 16:55, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

This appears to have been reported - it will be reviewed shortly. DamianZaremba (talk • contribs) 21:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

More like GetAClueBot

This bot changed something that I added when I was trying to contribute to this wonderful wealth of knowledge that is Wikipedia. How is Wikipedia at all a wiki anymore if random bots crawl every single change and moderate them like some kind of SkyNet? And now that some pages aren't even editable anymore I have to say that I really don't feel like Wikipedia is living up to the hype that made it explode 5 or so years ago. It's become a fascist regime of information controllers that are trying to subvert the minds of Americans and the world to some as of yet undiscovered, but certainly sinister agenda. 74.201.7.74 (talk) 16:30, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, I guess you don't want to watch it. And no, they do not moderate like Skynet, they monitor for vandals. However, it makes mistakes. See all the topics above?? Most of those are mistakes it made. It is a computer bot, not a human, give it a break. Well have "fun" lol. VoteDemOut! (talk) 17:00, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The bot has a false positive rate that is agreed to be acceptable by the Wikipedia community. ANNs are not perfect but have a very high success rate - if you believe your edit was legitimate then please REPORT IT so we can include it in the dataset used to train the bot. DamianZaremba (talk • contribs) 21:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

reverting only one change after 2 were made

this edit only undid the most recent vandalism and left the previous change behind. I think I have seen automated edits make this sort of mistake before. 69.126.127.193 (talk) 02:08, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

As far as I am aware ClueBot does revert multiple edits in places where the same ip made a few edits in a row and the last was caught as vandalism - it doesn't run each edit it is going to restore back though the ANN to check its rating of vandalism because it is slow, would require a much higher amount of processing, possible could cause the bot to not revert anything (which behavior could lead to people wanting it to report pages for fast deletion and such which is not really what the bot is designed for and could load to bad decisions). Hope this makes things clearer. DamianZaremba (talk • contribs) 15:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

way too fast lol

Cluebot NG is working.. but too well. We pretty much don’t need any anti-vandalism editors… it keeps getting them when they are at the top of the just changed list(recent changes) before I do.. Its getting annoying. Any tips for me to get some edits in there?? Thanks Libertarians Will Rule (talk) 14:43, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

There is not really any way to slow it down so to say (it is actually designed to be as fast as possible and the only limitations are those of bandwidth currently). The best thing from our point of view for you to do is a) revert any missed edits by cb b) review/report any edits so we can improve the dataset and c) contribute to our dataset via the review interface so we can a) check false positives are not too high and b) improve the dataset. We do aim to improve the bot and get as high as possible catch rate but there will always be a number of missed edits - this is due to the way edit thresholds are set to ensure the false positive rate is not greater than approved by the community. DamianZaremba (talk • contribs) 15:05, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Too much anti-vandalism editors.... --Ladksj (talk) 16:27, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I know it is working right and you can’t slow it down. I am trying to get rollback to make it easier for RVV, and they said I need about 50-100 edits.. I think I have about 30 of what I need.. Thanks for the tips! Libertarians Will Rule (talk) 13:57, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism

Please look at the edits byUser talk:Ramcrk He provides unsourced citations to prove his point of view and show hatred. he is indeed making disruptive edits. If you observe his edit patterns, his edits reflect his ill will for Andhra people. Please take care of this user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nagarjuna198 (talk • contribs) 02:18, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Wrong place and the two editors are involved in a content dispute. --NeilN talk to me 02:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
User:NeilN, I didnt know he has your support. User:NeilN, Please read before undoing and putting back to User talk:Ramcrk's edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nagarjuna198 (talk • contribs) 02:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
He doesn't have my support. I'm merely pointing out you're adding this in the wrong place and it's wrong to refer to a content dispute as "vandalism". --NeilN talk to me 02:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Please see my remarks in discussion at Talk:Andhra#Edit_War. You will know User talk:Ramcrk is a vandal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nagarjuna198 (talk • contribs) 04:06, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
This is a bot account, issues with users vandalising should be reported to the AIV page after they have been given the final warning and continue to disrupt editing. DamianZaremba (talk • contribs) 07:19, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to take part in a pilot study

I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to a short survey. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates only 5 minutes’’’. cooldenny (talk) 17:14, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ClueBot_Commons/Archives/2011/April&oldid=1145815027"