User talk:ClueBot Commons/Archives/2017/February

Please update link

User:ClueBot III links to Template:User:MiszaBot/Archive HowTo when it should link to User:Lowercase sigmabot III/Archive HowTo, since MiszaBot is no longer functional. — Eru·tuon 20:43, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree. This text comes from User:ClueBot III/Documentation, which is fully protected, so here's a request for an admin...

In the section How your page is archived, please search for "Better use" and change the sentence to

Better use [[User:Lowercase sigmabot III/Archive HowTo]] if you want to segment a talk page according to the dates of the threads.

-- John of Reading (talk) 09:12, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done thanks for pointing it out.--5 albert square (talk) 09:41, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

False Positives

I tried to upload a false positive but the Captcha didnt work. 178.238.38.161 (talk) 05:32, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Could you please link the diff? --TerraCodes ^{(talk to me)} 05:33, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Most likely this is the diff. IP, please do not insert comments like this into articles. If you have a comment for the attention of other editors, place it on the article's Talk page. The Bot correctly removed your comment which wasn't helpful to readers (versus other editors) of the article. General Ization ^Talk 05:38, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

The bot labeled my edit as vandal. Flagging 404 error and correcting mistake is wrong positive. I'm new here so I am trying to understand what you are talking about but correcting the reference was being pushed back. I think readers would know what a 404 error is. Readers whould also be able to know person correcting. Anyway you dodge issue of CAPTCHA failing to deploy on upload page - maybe I can find URL in history and post here. Now I am registered so I will check CAPTCHA again if vandal tag bots to my edit.Pontus5991 (talk) 06:23, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Pontus5991,

Please read the red box at the top of this page. ClueBot NG is not a human, it is a Wikipedia robot. As it is not human, it has no way of reading references to see if the link is dead or alive. It saw that you added a comment to an article and correctly reverted it. For future reference, you can repair links yourself.--5 albert square (talk) 09:17, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of Coke Edits

I do not understand why the computer program has reverted my changes with no proper reason. Please explain your reason for deleting my edits repetitively. Yours, --Lawrencegordon (talk) 13:43, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Lawrencegordon,

Probably because you mentioned the word "illegal". ClueBot NG is an anti-vandal robot and, although I'm not saying that you are a vandal, I'm sure that you can appreciate that is a word that is commonly used by vandals. I can see that your edit was also undone by a human editor *Treker. Personally I don't see why you would need to change "illicit" to "illegal" as many people know illicit means illegal. However, if you think that this should be changed then I would suggest that you start a conversation on the article's talk page.--5 albert square (talk) 15:25, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I apologise if my changes caused any trouble. I originally meant to simplify the word. Apologies --Lawrencegordon (talk) 08:01, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

You have not caused any trouble. No apology needed :)--5 albert square (talk) 10:03, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Problem reporting false positive

Could someone please report this edit as a false positive? For some reason, the report form keeps telling me I got the captcha wrong. Thanks. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:34, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Done! RoCo^(talk) 14:37, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Example: By year and numbered (without archive box)

Hello, I'm not entirely sure, but the example provided here seems to be titled incorrectly. I believe it should be "with archive box" instead of "without archive box". Correct me if I am wrong. Thanks! RoCo^(talk) 13:26, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Cobi and Rich Smith are probably the best people to ask.--5 albert square (talk) 02:23, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Repeated first warnings

ClueBotNG gave User talk:167.88.71.254 a pair of level-1 warnings three days apart after another editor had already handed down a warning earlier this month. There is a somewhat similar issue at User talk:12.252.241.122. Maybe I'm mistaken, but it seems to me that vandals should not be getting multiple level-1 warnings in the same month. Lepricavark (talk) 16:33, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Most of the 'bots reset their "escalation counter" daily. I would agree with you that this doesn't seem terribly useful. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

 Comment: I wonder if there is a policy as to how to determine what warning level should be used on user talk pages based on the period between their disruptive activity. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 16:39, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I base it on whether there are intervening gf edits, and if the targets of the vandalism are the same (implying that the IP has a consistent human behind it). If it appears to be an ongoing campaign, even if slow-running, I increment rather than reset. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:05, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Looking at the talk page, the IP was warned by another user on the 1st of February, then by ClueBot NG on the 10th and 13th. As it's an IP address, ClueBot NG wouldn't assume that it's the same editor, therefore it would start the warnings from fresh given those timescales as it wouldn't want to punish an editor for another editors vandalism.--5 albert square (talk) 02:17, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Errors on the List of Bobby's World episodes article

ClueBot NG thinks that people like Norm McCabe worked on Bobby's World when he never did. Proof: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0103373/fullcredits/ 71.95.47.181 (talk) 21:27, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Please read the red box at the top of this page, ClueBot NG is not human, therefore it cannot think. I suspect what triggered the bot in your edit is that you removed data.--5 albert square (talk) 02:44, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Your bot is malfunctioning

You bot is malfunctioning. Zxchyrjnuy (talk) 05:48, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

You can report that here. --TerraCodes ^{(talk to me)} 05:50, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

OK thanks Zxchyrjnuy (talk) 05:51, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Improper archival of heading

In this edit, ClueBot III took away a level-3 subheading when archiving a level-4 subsection; this was an error. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:41, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

@Cobi: It did it again. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:08, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

@Cobi: Another example: same page, different heading. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:20, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Partial vandalism revert by ClueBot

When a vandal makes several edits in a row, ClueBot reverts only the last one. This is a serious problem, as it makes harder (for human editors) to detect the remaining vandalism, and to identify the correct version to be restored. This is the case for the ClueBot NG's revert IDs 2943454 (3 vandal's edits, only one reverted) and 2943459 (two vandal's edits, one reverted), both at Gradient

By the way the same problem occurs when two different vandals edit in succession. This is probably harder to fix. I do not remember when and where I have encountered the problem. D.Lazard (talk) 17:39, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

The way ClueBot NG works, I believe, is that whenever the "ANN" score for a particular edit exceeds a given threshold (I think ~0.8), the bot will automatically revert all edits made by that user to the last version that was made by another user, just as how the "rollback" feature works: reverting edits by a given user to the last version by another user (example).

It would be, in my opinion, technically challenging to implement a feature that would roll back a series of vandalistic edits by multiple users, as the bot would not know which version should be restored. That probably is a reason why tools like STIKI exists, which can return results which ClueBot has assigned a high ANN score to, but not high enough to exceed the threshold needed for automatic reversion. There are already numerous editors monitoring the ClueBots' activity (besides Cobi), and an even larger crew of rollbackers ready to back them up. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 18:37, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

A human would see the changes to Gradient as "a vandal mak[ing] several edits in a row", but ClueBot saw them as series of edits by different editors, since the IP address varied by one digit. If the same account or IP address makes a string of edits and ClueBot picks up the last one, then ClueBot will indeed revert them all. It's something patrollers learn to watch for: Noyster (talk), 20:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Captcha borked

The Captcha interface is broken, it doesn't accept entries with valid captcha release codes -- 70.51.200.162 (talk) 05:11, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

The Captcha works for me. Could you please link the page(s) where the Captcha doesn't work for you? --TerraCodes ^{(talk to me)} 05:14, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

When entering a code into http://tools.wmflabs.org/cluebot/ the captcha presented at the next page processes it, and returns a string of characters that you pasted into the next box, but when you submit the entire entry, nothing happens. -- 70.51.200.162 (talk) 06:05, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Response to level 4 warning'

Greetings Human. Without giving away trade secrets, does CB recognise that level 4 warnings have been placed on a persistent vandal talk page? Regards JRPG (talk) 16:49, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Sure it does JRPG, ClueBot will report them to AIV, as here. It's a question why the main AIV page has a "Bot-reported" section, when all the bot reports have long been going to the subpage: Noyster (talk), 00:42, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks : Noyster — Preceding unsigned comment added by JRPG (talk • contribs) 20:05, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Changing the age parameter

I hope this isn't a dumb question but is there any possible problem if the age parameter is changed to a longer date? If someone uses the default age of 2160, it can generate a lot of archived sections with maybe just one question in each archive. To me, that's more of a nuisance than a benefit, as it's better to have more questions on a single page. Would changing the age parameter (after it had been previously set years ago) only affect question from that point forward, or would it potentially mess up previously archived messages and/or other pages linked to that particular talk page? Thanks in advance. __209.179.9.46 (talk) 17:59, 25 February 2017 (UTC)