User talk:ClueBot Commons/Archives/2015/October
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:ClueBot Commons. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Where to discuss ClueBot newcomer-friendliness suggestions?
Hi! I helped with a new editor training session recently, and three of the new editors received ClueBot auto-reverts for good-faith edits, and they were quite confused. I reported the false positives on their behalf, but I would also like to make suggestions for revising the automated user talk page message to be more understandable for newcomers. I tried visiting the IRC channel listed at User:ClueBot NG#IRC Channel to discuss this, but the one other human there said it wasn't the right place. Where should I go to learn more about your thinking for this talk page message and discuss it, so I can make informed suggestions for improving it? And is that IRC advice outdated? Thanks! Dreamyshade (talk) 17:57, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
67.169.46.241 (talk) 23:45, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- Well, there will always be some people that won't thoroughly read the message they've been given, much like there's no shortage of people that don't read the message in the red box at the top of this talk page. (Just look at the page history!) --I am k6ka Talk to me! See what I have done 01:19, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
- I believe that with thoughtful attention to detail, people can write messages that newcomers find easier to understand, and I'd like to help with that. There were some very interesting results from testing revised user warnings in 2012 - showing that modifying the text of warnings could change editor behavior. I found this article about ClueBot, which says "How could the gatekeepers be made less imposing? Halfaker and other researchers began experimenting. First they changed Cluebot’s messages to vandals; that revealed that nicer messages actually stop vandalism quicker" - but I haven't been able to find more information about that experiment with nicer messages. Are those still implemented, or was that a temporary experiment? Dreamyshade (talk) 05:12, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- ClueBot NG's first level warning, located at User:ClueBot NG/Warnings/Vandal1, doesn't mention the word "vandalism", "vandal", or even "anti-vandalism computer program". It has been removed and modified in the past due to it being WP:BITEY, where even hinting at the word "vandalism" could make newbies uncomfortable. This doesn't, of course, change the edit summary of the revert, which says "Reverting possible vandalism by..." which might explain how some people get scared and run away, since they missed the word "possible". --I am k6ka Talk to me! See what I have done 17:25, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- CBNG has always used those templates above. If there is any experiment to be found, it will be in the history of those templates. 67.169.46.241 (talk) 19:07, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- ClueBot NG's first level warning, located at User:ClueBot NG/Warnings/Vandal1, doesn't mention the word "vandalism", "vandal", or even "anti-vandalism computer program". It has been removed and modified in the past due to it being WP:BITEY, where even hinting at the word "vandalism" could make newbies uncomfortable. This doesn't, of course, change the edit summary of the revert, which says "Reverting possible vandalism by..." which might explain how some people get scared and run away, since they missed the word "possible". --I am k6ka Talk to me! See what I have done 17:25, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- I believe that with thoughtful attention to detail, people can write messages that newcomers find easier to understand, and I'd like to help with that. There were some very interesting results from testing revised user warnings in 2012 - showing that modifying the text of warnings could change editor behavior. I found this article about ClueBot, which says "How could the gatekeepers be made less imposing? Halfaker and other researchers began experimenting. First they changed Cluebot’s messages to vandals; that revealed that nicer messages actually stop vandalism quicker" - but I haven't been able to find more information about that experiment with nicer messages. Are those still implemented, or was that a temporary experiment? Dreamyshade (talk) 05:12, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
October 2015
You may not be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you help Wikipedia. ThisGuyIsGreat (talk) 00:55, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
(Redacted)
Um...I have never been to that cheer-leading article in my life! WTF???112.198.83.99 (talk) 07:57, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- Please, calm down. Changes are you're on a shared IP address and that someone else using that IP address edited the article in question. The IP address was then reassigned to you, where you saw the message intended for that other user. --I am k6ka Talk to me! See what I have done 13:27, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
ClueBot NG change needed
ClueBot NG should analyse all edits of one user, not just one edit. I had got false positives by ClueBot NG, with examples in my talkpage. See the histories of those edits too. 125.239.151.237 (talk) 06:39, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- ClueBot NG checks all mainspace edits from Special:RecentChanges, not by user. Thus, all mainspace edits made to Wikipedia are checked by ClueBot NG. When the bot reverts an edit, it performs a rollback, so it will always revert all consecutive edits by one user to the last edit not made by that user. It also has a self-imposed 1RR rule, in that it will not 1) Revert to one of its own edits, 2) Will not revert the same user/page combination within a 24 hour period. Also, your talk page is empty and your edit to this talk page is the only edit assigned to your IP address. --I am k6ka Talk to me! See what I have done 11:39, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for Guideline
{{atop}} Thanks for your guideline. (Gopikarthikeyan.k (talk) 09:19, 14 October 2015 (UTC))