Jump to content

User talk:ClueBot Commons/Archives/2011/May

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


CB3 back up and running (with recurring problems)

But taking a looks at the contribs, something is going HORRIBLY wrong when it updates the indices for non-user talk pages. See the following few (of the many, many pages):

All of these pages are identical, as far as I can tell.
CB3 is correctly archiving talk threads, just not updating the indices correctly. – Ajltalk 09:14, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey Ajl, ClueBot3 now has been turned off for the time being due to server issues (keeps crashing the server which in turn crashes CBNG... not good. I'll speak to Cobi about this one for ya. - Rich(MTCD)Talk Page 14:41, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, if it's crashing the server, my thought it is because of the above problem. – Ajltalk 18:31, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Actually crashing the server was due to it forkbombing it - Cobi has altered the code and restarted it as far as I know. DamianZaremba (talk • contribs) 13:05, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, CB3 still isn't running (since the 15th), but the past few edits to the "Talk" indices seem to be okay. – Ajltalk 06:19, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
It works! --43?9enter ☭msg☭contribs 05:55, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Does anyone know how long it will take for Cluebot to archive something? (See my talk page for more details) --43?9enter ☭msg☭contribs 01:42, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, if CB3 would stay consistently running, it would have archived everything by now. Have you considered using MiszaBot in the mean time? – Ajltalk 19:04, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

But then I don't get an automatically updating archive box. And I like archives sorted by date. --43?9enter ☭msg☭contribs 01:21, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Therefore, I shall keep faith and hope that the next time Cluebot gets back up it'll archive my page first. --43?9enter ☭msg☭contribs 05:07, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Cluebot making another section of the same month?

Hi there. I warned 108.20.63.5 for Vandalism, But noticed Cluebot NG made another April 2011 section. This is a bug I assume? Croben Problem? 16:48, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Croben, yes this is a bug. I've mentioned it on this page before.--5 albert square (talk) 23:45, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

A quick look at Alabama's history shows just under half the edits since December 17 are vandalism or reverting/undoing of same. Perhaps ClueBot could be more aggressive in policing articles that tend to be targets for vandalism? Likewise user/IP history could be a hint, though not as solid since vandals' histories are short. Inclusion of such a feature might also take into consideration protections and blocks during the examination period, or not consider time spans across such measures. And perhaps the bot is already doing all this, in which case I give my hearty thanks. -- ke4roh (talk) 19:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Cluebot-NG and Wikimania 2011

Just a pointer to the Cluebot administration. Cluebot-NG (along with much anti-vandalism progress of the past year) are featured in my submission to Wikimania 2011. This should certainly be interpreted as an indication of a job well done -- and I personally thank you for our collaboration and look forward to more in the future. Thanks, West.andrew.g (talk) 04:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Your barnstar award for stopping vandalism!

Barnstar has been moved to the Awards page. --43?9enter ☭msg☭contribs 07:02, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Question

What would probably happen if I changed the page with true on it that is changed to false in case of an emergency to "null"?

Also, what if I redirected it to something, put both words in, or redirected it to a page with both words? The bot itself? Recent changes? Jimbo Wales? Shrug-shrug (talk) 19:38, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The bot checks against the content of that page in the following fashion: if(preg_match( '/(yes|enable|true)/iS', $content)) {}. So in answer to your question it would stop the bot from performing any reverts. DamianZaremba (talk • contribs) 22:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
In short, the bot will run only if the page says "true". --43?9enter ☭msg★contribs 05:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
"true", "yes", or "enable". – AJLtalk 15:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Wrong username reported in edit summary

Here are two entries from ClueBot NG's user contributions:

  1. (del/undel) 20:04, 4 May 2011 (diff | hist) N User talk:Monkeynutt$32 ‎ (Warning Monkeynutt$32 - #1)
  2. (del/undel) 20:04, 4 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Aberdeen ‎ (Reverting possible vandalism by Monkeynutt4272406582 to version by 2.102.76.190. False positive? Report it. Thanks, ClueBot NG. (388897) (Bot))

Looks as if $32 at the end of the username may have been expanded into 4272406582 ? Hope this helps.  —SMALLJIM  19:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm looking into this at the moment - the bot should handle usernames as a string so nothing about it should change. DamianZaremba (talk • contribs) 20:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick reply. I hope it's fixable, or at least just a cosmetic issue. It's good to have CBNG running again, BTW.  —SMALLJIM  22:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

It was not vandalism.

It was a good faith edit, many people confuse metalcore with post-hardcore. It is very common. X.beautiful.nightmare.x (talk) 22:55, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Report it to User:ClueBot NG/FalsePositives if you haven't already done so. --43?9enter ★☭ 23:13, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism

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 List of Zzzap! characters, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted (undone) by ClueBot NG.

Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism. ClueBot NG produces very few false positives, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been detected as unconstructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: List of Zzzap! characters was changed by 81.153.143.227 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.940783 on 2011-05-08T12:54:32+00:00 . Thank you. ISD(talk) 12:54, 8 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ASHLEY54321 (talk • contribs)

This is a bot, if it was a false positive please report it. DamianZaremba (talk • contribs) 14:39, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
ASHLEY54321 is a sockpuppet of an user editing from 81.153.143.227 that has been committing vandalism. This was a false report. MikeWazowski (talk) 15:15, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Cluebot NG API (or Logs)

Hi, this is a copy of my message already posted on Crispy1989's user page, but I may rather get an answer here.

I hope you can help me out: I'm a PhD student doing research on Wikipedia, and I wonder if there is also an API for Cluebot NG that you can send a RevID to and get back the vandalism score (or -if not available - maybe just a log of the vandalism scores already computed in the past). I couldn't find anything in that regard on the user:Cluebot NG page or elsewhere. The background is that for my research, I analyze a local dump of the English Wikipedia and I need to filter out revisions that are most probably vandalism (and need to do so also for the past time when Cluebot NG was not active yet and for revisions where he wasn't fast enough and got 'beaten' by others ). And Cluebot NG seems to do the best job so far marking such revisions with high (and proven) accuracy. I would set up ClueBot NG myself on my machine to let it go trough the dumps. But this seems fairly complicated and I don't have the proficiency to do that. So it would be nice if you could give me some hints. 129.13.72.198 (talk) 12:38, 6 May 2011 (UTC) --> main account: Fmoo (talk) 13:05, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

There is no API for checking edit scores against - it is something I am looking into but need to talk to Cobi about. The easiest way to get edit scores is to put a bot in #cluebotng-spam and #wikipedia-van on irc.cluenet.org - these channels are where reverted and not reverted edit info gets thrown. As for existing scores please see the list here (I just dumped them out from logs). DamianZaremba (talk • contribs) 13:15, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
On a side note that file is around 100M so don't open it in a browser ;) DamianZaremba (talk • contribs) 13:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, that already helps a lot! I you're ever setting up that API it would be great to know :) I got just one more question regarding the variable "reverted" with values "1"/"0": is this set to "1" if a) the edit in quesiton is actually reverted by anyone or if b) Cluebot made the decision to revert it (and did so himself or couldn't b/c somebody else was quicker) ? If b) is the case, then I wonder why sometimes the score is 1.0 (which is the highest on the "vandalism probability scale", right?) and still, "reverted" gets set to "0". And in this same example, if a) is true -> why did nobody (including Cluebot) revert it, then? Thanks for your time and effort! Fmoo (talk) 22:24, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi, in that xml "reverted" will only be 1 if ClueBot reverted the edit, it does not take into account if it was beaten or not so if the edit was reverted before ClueBot attempted it it would still be set to 0. I've updated the XML dump with another flag called Beaten which reflects if ClueBot couldn't revert the edit due to being beaten by another user. Also yes 1.0 is the highest the ANN will score at (the range is 0 - 1). DamianZaremba (talk • contribs) 22:57, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

CBNG as a vandalism firewall

On a completely different tack, I was wondering if CBNG could eventually be tacked on as a sort of firewall to MediaWiki so that vandalism could be rejected before it reached the database. There'd have to be some sort of "edit refused" message returned to the vandal, and a process for dealing with false positives, of course, but wouldn't it save a lot of hassle!  —SMALLJIM  22:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

That thing about the edit refusing should not be done, because CBNG still has false positives. How would they be dealt with? --43?9enter ★☭ 06:33, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Firstly, I'm not talking about doing this now - it's known that the ANN in CBNG will continue to improve as it gets further training, and the threshold can be set high enough to make false positives (fp) arbitrarily rare; the stats say it catches around 40% of vandalism now, with an fp rate of below 0.1%. So one way of working would be to set a very well trained CBNG firewall to silently reject just the most obvious vandalism, with an vanishingly small fp rate. In this case, the existing CBNG would still run as it does now, probably using the same dataset as the firewall but with a lower threshold. Alternatively, if the firewall replaced the existing bot - with an attendant higher fp rate - there would seem to be several possibilities, but I think the basic principle would be to replace vandalism edits with messages to the user's own talk page along the lines of the ones CBNG posts now (reworded appropriately, of course). Maybe only one such message per day would be issued to avoid giving positive feedback to the vandal.  —SMALLJIM  10:58, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
But still, this idea is interesting. How would recognition be obtained if a vandalism edit doesn't even get through? It would just be cluttering the talk page with "We rejected your vandalism edits, the ones which never went live" repeatedly. In fact, it would only show that the vandal couldn't get past the hypothetical CBNG filters. --43?9enter ★☭ 06:40, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm not claiming to have worked out all the details of this - it was really a matter of expressing an idea I had in case it sparked some interest or other ideas. But why would you want to "recognise" vandals if their attempted disruption doesn't even appear? Without any feedback, what incentive would they have to continue? And as for the alternative of cluttering up their talk pages with warning messages - well, it wouldn't be as bad as having article edit histories that are full of vandalism and revert edits, would it?  —SMALLJIM  17:49, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
I like this idea, particularly because we'd have an opportunity to tell the vandal, at the moment of vandalism, that they're messing up our community resource. Such an immediate rebuke could have a powerful effect on reducing recidivism. -- ke4roh (talk) 18:01, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
While I kinda like this idea it would have to be implemented very carefully to avoid disrupting editing. I would suggest something like on the edit it is checked against the bot, if it looks like vandalism then a big ugly notice is displayed BUT there is an option to proceed with the edit (complete with captcha). This would prevent automated scripts from disrupting Wikipedia but wouldn't prevent targeted attacks from users, the edits would then be flagged up to be manually reviewed much like the white list at the moment. However I don't think this would be widely accepted by the community as the role of bots has always been to revert so that history is maintained. The main problem with it being a mediawiki plugin is that the edit sets are specific to the wiki and require thousands of manually verified edits for the bot to run successfully. DamianZaremba (talk • contribs) 18:10, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
I've been reading about Werdna's Edit Filter MediaWiki extension which has already established the principle of edits not reaching the database. I guess a CBNG-based vandalism firewall could be some future spinoff from that project.  —SMALLJIM  21:05, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Friends are mean at times

My friends keep editing stuff and their going to get me banned so sorry Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.104.75.138 (talk) 22:28, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Do not blame your friends--5 albert square (talk) 23:36, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

False positive on Average frustrated chump

'nuff said. -- 92.224.230.62 (talk) 17:33, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

You should have read the message at the top of this page. Maybe it needs to be made more prominent.  —SMALLJIM  17:59, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
I made it BIGGER and added an EditNotice as apparently a lot of people never read it. DamianZaremba (talk • contribs) 18:12, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
That should do the trick - the Editnotice made me jump!  —SMALLJIM  21:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
I fixed it. --Σ ☭★ 23:41, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Improving sorting vandalism from legit edits by Edit Summary

Hi,

By accident, while needing a quick reference from the page on Clapper Girls, I ran instead into The Clapper, which instantly set off, if you will, alarm bells on two accounts. One the detailed trademark information, and second the long list of trivial cultural references. Being busy, I decided not to log in and deal with any other pending issues. ClueBot removed the edit. I'm assume this was done entirely algorithmically on the basis of it being an anon IP with considerable material removed.

I don't know how often this situation happens, but my suggestion of how to avoid it would be to look at the word length of the Edit Summary. Relatively few vandals give detailed explanations for their edits. Regards, Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 14:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Yea, I agree, it would mean less work on my front on the report interface as well, I'll put this to Cobi next time I see him. Thanks - Rich(MTCD)T|C|E-Mail 11:35, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Bot flag not displayed on history

The 'bot flag' no longer is displayed on view history. Is this intentional? Thank you - Jim1138 (talk) 19:43, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

See User:ClueBot_NG/FAQ#Why_don.27t_Cluebot-NG.27s_edits_show_up_as_bot_edits.3F? DamianZaremba (talk • contribs) 23:52, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Two bots

Can I ask, why do you need ClueBot and ClueBot NG if they both revert vandalism? RcsprinterGimme a message 16:21, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Cluebot was disabled as of 3 December 2010, which is when ClueBot NG was approved for service. – AJLtalk 20:06, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Weird page

You edited the page Greenhouse gas, but it appears to not been reverted from before it was vandalized.--1966batfan (talk) 02:45, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

How to become a recent changes patroller

I want to know how to become a recent changes patroller.--1966batfan (talk) 03:01, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

By watching the Special:RecentChanges. – AJLtalk 05:43, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Or, if you want to do this without constantly reloading, I like WPCVN (http://wpcvn.com/). There are a bunch of other monitoring tools to make your life easier under WP:RCP#Tools —Preceding unsigned comment added by ProtoFire (talk • contribs) 01:35, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Please remove your false positivie revert

The report php is not accessible due to the server error(browsing the url given would result in a downloadable file not a browsable page), so please remove your false positive by one who operates this bot. Thanks you.

The reason that the edit I made should be constructive is I moved the article resolution (policy debate) to resolution (debate), wiki moves the talk page to the same destination name because of the default checked options. And the talk page should be moved then it'll be the same name to the article's one(resolution (debate)

Thanks for your help.The Mysql ID is:634323. Ivantalk (talk) 18:42, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, ClueBot cannot revert it's own edits as it is a bot, not a human editor. If this is a false positive, please revert the edit and report the false positive here so the bot can be trained. Thanks.--5 albert square (talk) 23:48, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Opting in

Does it still work? --Σ ☭★ 19:26, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Judging by the current code (as noted below) it does!
    private static function loop( $line ) {
        ....
        switch( $data[ 'namespace' ] . $data[ 'title' ] ) {
            case 'User:' . Config::$user . '/Run':
                Globals::$run = API::$q->getpage( 'User:' . Config::$user . '/Run' );
            break;
            case 'Wikipedia:Huggle/Whitelist';
                Globals::$wl = API::$q->getpage( 'Wikipedia:Huggle/Whitelist' );
            break;
            case 'User:' . Config::$user . '/Optin':
                Globals::$optin = API::$q->getpage( 'User:' . Config::$user . '/Optin' );
                            break;
            case 'User:' . Config::$user . '/AngryOptin':
                Globals::$aoptin = API::$q->getpage( 'User:' . Config::$user . '/AngryOptin' );
            break;
        }
        ....
    }
See here around line 95. DamianZaremba (talk • contribs) 19:36, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
I think I get it... (brain catches fire) --Σ ☭★ 20:00, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Trandparency,darling!

Please don't revert my edits,darling.We must be transparent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.21.253.141 (talk) 18:41, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Facepalm --Σ ☭★ 20:45, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Secondary Facepalm - Rich(MTCD)Talk Page 20:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Triple Facepalm Combo. --Ion496 (talk) 07:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

detection of repeated vandalism

Is it possible to make the bot smarter about repeated vandalism? On User_talk:174.131.0.138 the bot has added 5 consecutive entries, alternately

  • "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 ..., did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted (undone) by ClueBot NG.", with a new month-year heading; and
  • "Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at .... Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been automatically reverted.", without a new heading.

—Coroboy (talk) 23:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll send uw-longterm at it, and hope it helps. --Σ ☭★ 05:50, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Ok, it didn't help, but now we can file an abuse report. --Σ ☭★ 18:04, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

My question was actually about improving the bot, so that the warnings added to a user page don't start at the beginning all the time. —Coroboy (talk) 07:36, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Guy Fawkes Night

Could someone who knows a thing or two about how Cluebot archives things please have a look at the archives for this page? It's getting confused with Talk:Gunpowder Plot and linking to the wrong archives, and we don't know why. Parrot of Doom 08:52, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

It's been a problem for a long time now. I've been emailing Cobi about it, looks like it's time to start mailing other people (like Crispy). – AJLtalk 14:43, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Only Cobi knows about ClueBot III, Crispy won't be able to help you. DamianZaremba (talk • contribs) 14:48, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Gah, I just realized that, too... – AJLtalk 14:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
I hope Cobi is OK... Nobody's heard from him for a while, even on IRC. – AJLtalk 14:57, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
We know the feeling AJL... I'll see if I can get in contact with him at some point - Rich(MTCD)T|C|E-Mail 21:01, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Ok this seems to have fixed itself now, so thanks whoever did it :) Parrot of Doom 20:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Translation requests are not abusive!

Since when is asking for a translation of an article that is reachable through the sub-domain EN unreasonable. Last time I checked EN meant ENGLISH! If this is untrue or there has recently been a policy change in Wikipedia that alternate languages could be posted in article sections then I appologize. However, if this is the case I would be more than happy to start posting all my comments and articles in Pig-Latin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.89.125.186 (talk • contribs) 19:07 (UTC), 23 May 2011

The reason that the bot objected is that the place for such a comment would have been the talk page of the article, not in the article itself. - David Biddulph (talk) 16:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Why level 1 warning to follow level 4?

Why does ClueBot send a level 1 warning when the previous warning had been level 4? As one of many examples: User talk:Lorenzod123 - David Biddulph (talk) 16:04, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Just Wondering Why

Gday Cluebot, hope your having a great day, you seem to have left a message on my talk page about something to do with Jeremy Laidler and it said that it was vandalism. I dont know why you have left this message on my talk page because I havent edited the article Jeremy Laidler in my time as a Wikipedian. Please give me a reason why you have given me this warning. If you could do that it would be great, thanks. --124.168.99.241--footy hawkers awsmm 09:06, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Just to let you know

I will be removing the warnings you issued me for no reason--footy hawkers awsmm 09:08, 26 May 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gofootyhawks (talk • contribs)

Duplicate section names

I've found an example where this accidentally re-used the same new section name -- in this case "May 2011" for notices 3 days apart (same day seems to work fine). In history order:

Whatever technique is used for the same day notices should be used for repeats. That code might also note that recent #1, and thus continue with #2 and #3.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 02:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Hiii

I am really not into accepting this : I am sorry

film music, music artists, actors list were not allowed in telugu cinema????so how can u allow them in tamil cinema articles???

For telugu cinema wikipedia article and for tamil cinema article different rules??? not acceptable.

There is universal law

(61.2.74.41 (talk) 18:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)).

I'm not a vandal.

Just correct the wrong page because what he says.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexis Damián Rossi (talk • contribs) 21:01, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Tamil cinema

Hi. Please find that Tamil cinema is very significant article among indian cinema related. Very high percentage of huge vandalism is taking place right now. Please do semi-protect the article. Have a watch on it. I do appreciate your efforts to semi-protect it fully. ---- Ungal Vettu Pillai (talk) 11:59, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, CBNG is a bot and hence cannot protect pages, however you can request the page be protected at Request for Page Protection. = Rich(MTCD)T|C|E-Mail 22:43, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Crash bandicoot sales

According to the VGChartz website all the first 5 orignal crash bandicoot games have sold well over what has been stated on the crash series wiki for example, it states crash warped has sold 3.87 million units however it has sold well over 7.2 million units worldwide can someone update them please, the psn sales have also sold approximetly 1.2 million. if any clarification is needed go on to the VGChartz website and in the info box type in the crash bandicoot games and will give you the correct sales amount — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.221.106.129 (talk) 17:49, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

This information will not help CBNG however you can report a false positive here - Rich(MTCD)T|C|E-Mail 22:43, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ClueBot_Commons/Archives/2011/May&oldid=1145814854"