Jump to content

User talk:ClueBot Commons/Archives/2013/January

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


FalsePositives page for inactive ClueBot

I followed the False positive? Report it link from the log message for an old edit by ClueBot (not NG). It took me to User:ClueBot/FalsePositives. That page's Click here reporting link fails with "server not found".

It has taken me quite some time to figure out that the bot in question is inactive. Judging by the page's edit history, several other people have been confused too. Adding to my confusion was that the corresponding page for ClueBot NG looks so similar; I didn't realize for quite a while that I was looking at two different pages. (I got a distinct maze of twisty little passages, all different feeling when that finally dawned on me :-) )

I've taken the liberty of copying the wikibreak template from User:ClueBot to User:ClueBot/FalsePositives, and rewording the latter's introductory sentence. I'm not comfortable doing more than that, but I suggest that a ClueBot maintainer edit the page more extensively, to make it clearer than my (intentionally minimal) changes can do that:

  1. ClueBot is out of service
  2. So is its false-positive reporting mechanism
  3. Reporting false positives against it would be pointless anyway (except in the unlikely circumstance that ClueBot is ever revived)

Or whatever subset of those points is actually true...

Thanks. Erics (talk) 20:15, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I've tidied it up.--5 albert square (talk) 22:07, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Looks good. Thanks much. Erics (talk) 05:17, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Feeding ClueBot false-positives into ClueBot NG

Actually, thinking more about my point #3 above: mightn't it make sense to feed ClueBot's false positives into ClueBot NG's dataset? On the one hand, NG presumably makes different mistakes from the old ClueBot, so I have no idea how useful feedback from one tool would be for improving the other's accuracy. On the other hand, data is data; if people are willing to provide it, why not make use of it? Or would that in fact do more harm than good? Erics (talk) 20:20, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure that would actually be possible. It's been some time now since ClueBot was active and I'm fairly certain ClueNet have undergone a lot of change in that time, various upgrades etc etc. Also, I would imagine that merging the two databases would take some time and possibly make a database too large. After all the original ClueBot made close to 1.6 million edits I think before he took his Wikibreak.
I'll swing by Rich's page though and let him know about this.--5 albert square (talk) 22:06, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Maybe Cobi will correct me, but I think they are 2 totally different databases... I don't think it can be done - Rich(MTCD)T|C|E-Mail 23:28, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Actually Rich, I think you're correct. Thinking about it I'm sure I now remember ClueBot NG having some downtime earlier in the year because of it.--5 albert square (talk) 00:18, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Sorry if I was unclear. I didn't mean to suggest that the databases be merged. Rather, the idea was just that the old ClueBot's false-positive page could take me to a tool that submits my report to ClueBot NG instead of to the old ClueBot. That assumes (and I've only now realized this, and that the assumption might well be incorrect) that a report of the form "text FOO on page BAR was flagged as vandalism but is really OK" is sufficient to feed into NG's learning machinery. But maybe it isn't useful, without other context as to how the decision was made in the first place -- and of course that context, from old ClueBot's database, would be meaningless to NG. Anyway, it's probably not worth a whole lot of effort; on further thought, I don't know how many people would be looking far enough back in history, at this point, to be reporting old-ClueBot's false positives in the first place. Erics (talk) 05:16, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Is ClueBot III restricted to same NAMESPACE? What about subpages and parent targets?

See [1] at Wikipedia:WikiProject Puerto Rico/Assessment/Requests. I specified the prefix as Wikipedia talk: which is different from where the original content resided at (the original content was in the Wikipedia: NAMESPACE). The bot ignored the specified NAMESPACE and performed the move onto the same NAMESPACE where the original content resided at; ie: it was not able to switch to a different NAMESPACE than that of the origin:

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis
| archiveprefix=Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Puerto Rico/Archives/
| format=Y/F
}}

EXPECTED RESULT
Wikipedia:WikiProject Puerto Rico/Assessment/Requests archived into Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Puerto Rico/Assessment/Requests/Archives/December/2012

REAL RESULT
Wikipedia:WikiProject Puerto Rico/Assessment/Requests archived into Wikipedia:WikiProject Puerto Rico/Assessment/Requests/Archives/December/2012


Also, how can the bot archive a subpage to an archive in a parent target? For example, how can the bot archive Wikipedia:WikiProject Puerto Rico/Assessment/Requests into Wikipedia:WikiProject Puerto Rico/Archives?

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 09:32, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

This is to prevent the bot clobbering over pages it shouldn't. If you need a specific instance fixed, let me know and I can override it. -- Cobi(t|c|b) 05:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Puerto Rico/Archive        → Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Puerto Rico/Archives/<year>/<month>
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Puerto Rico/Archive 1      → Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Puerto Rico/Archives/<year>/<month>
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Puerto Rico/Archive 2      → Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Puerto Rico/Archives/<year>/<month>
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Puerto Rico/Archive 3      → Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Puerto Rico/Archives/<year>/<month>
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Puerto Rico/Assessment     → Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Puerto Rico/Archives/<year>/<month>
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Puerto Rico/templates      → Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Puerto Rico/Archives/<year>/<month>
Wikipedia:WikiProject Puerto Rico/Assessment/Requests → Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Puerto Rico/Archives/<year>/<month>
Is there any way that you can implement some sort of privilege for advanced users? Similar to MiszaBot's key parameter in order to override this?
—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 06:15, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
It has a key parameter. Though, only I can generate them, and they are specific to a certain page and archiveprefix. I have updated the last one to have a key -- it should be fixed now. The others didn't have a CB3 template on them, and I am not entirely sure why the first 4 should be auto-archived anyway. If you add a CB3 template (commented out if you prefer so it doesn't immediately activate) to them to do what you want, I can add a key. -- Cobi(t|c|b) 19:21, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 Done Will this archive each entry into its corresponding month-year or will it dump everything into Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Puerto Rico/Archives/2013/January like it happened at [2]? —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 19:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
See my comment above about that behavior. -- Cobi(t|c|b) 19:56, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Weird db output

So, according to the recentchanges table, ClueBot's edits are made by a non-bot ;p. Anything at your end that could be causing this? Ironholds (talk) 15:21, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

This is intentional, and it applies to all anti-vandal bots, not just ClueBot NG. See User:ClueBot NG/FAQ#Edits. – Wdchk (talk) 15:43, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Neat. Pain in the arse for db analysis, mind ;p. Ironholds (talk) 04:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Captcha code broken?

More than 10 tries and still no success with ClueBot NG Report Interface. The Captcha says "two words" but one is always a non-word! (have tried closest real word also)

page info: http://report.cluebot.cluenet.org/?page=View&id=1425713 ID: 1425713 User: 165.121.80.205 Article: 2012 Delhi gang rape case Friday, the 4th of January 2013 at 04:03:18 AM #90238 Anonymous (anonymous) "When I originally edited this paragraph, I made an edit comment that I thought a video source was less reliable, as I could not check it. It has been several days and no one has added a better source. {cn} is not justified as the source is listed, just uncheckable. Is there a better way to handle this situation?"

P.S. the Captcha on Edit pages does not have this coding or problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.121.80.205 (talk) 09:19, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Yea, I'm working to (very slowly) changing the CAPTCHA system on the report interface, ReCaptcha is becoming somewhat of an annoyance - Rich(MTCD)T|C|E-Mail 00:17, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

ClueBot III just archived everything into the same month instead of splitting it

See [3] at Talk:Monsanto. ClueBot III just archived everything into Talk:Monsanto/Archives/2012/October. It also created an index even though the parameters indicated the bot not to do so (default value of index). —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 05:26, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Because the bot does not read timestamps (it works based on diffs -- if the section is unchanged between the revision age hours ago and the current revision, archive it into the page named after age hours ago; this also means that the bot is more accurate with what is archived and what is not -- for example, if someone were to fake a timestamp, that wouldn't affect the bot, it also will pick up non-timestamped changes), the initial archival will do this because the bot assumes you are current on archival when the bot tags are added. Subsequent archivals will go into the correct archive (the one dated based on the last activity in that section). The easiest way is to copy-paste into the relevant archives (if none existed before you added CB3).
Furthermore, per the docs,

The index parameter should be set to yes if you wish the bot to dump an index in place of the template. This is useful if you have wrapped the template with an {{archive box}}. Otherwise it should be set to no.

index doesn't have a specified default value, and should be set explicitly to yes or no. It will still create an index, just not transclude it. If you don't want it even to create an index in its own userspace, you need to use nogenerateindex=1:

nogenerateindex

Type: unsigned integer (boolean)
Default: 0

Description: If this is set to 1, the bot will not generate an index under User:ClueBot III/Indices/. There are very few times this option should be used. If this option is used, the index option will no longer work right.

-- Cobi(t|c|b) 19:37, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Not sure. I don't understand what do I have to do exactly so that CB3 archives each entry into its corresponding month-year if no archive existed before adding CB3. Could you please tone down a bit the technical jargon and explain it as if I were a 5 year old? Thanks for everything that you do bro, appreciate your time, patience, and effort. Cheers! —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 20:03, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
You have to manually create the archive pages and archive the sections before adding CB3 if you care about the history before CB3 was added. Otherwise CB3 will dump it all in the same archive when it creates it.
The reason is because the bot doesn't look at the timestamps, and instead looks at the history of the page. In this way, it is fundamentally different from MiszaBot, and this is one of drawbacks of doing it this way -- that it archives everything into the current archive on the first run. The benefits are that it is more accurate in detecting changes to sections. To be clear, it will work correctly after the first archive has happened.
To recap, the easiest way is to make sure your archives are current before switching to CB3. -- Cobi(t|c|b) 20:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Idea: can't I just hack it by creating the seed used by CB3 to perform consequent archives? Is it not the indexes? I can manually create the index then, no? That way CB3 will beleive that it already performed an archive and operate as if it were performing a routinary task. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 20:37, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
The bot does not distinguish between initial and "routine" archivals. That is the issue. The very first archival it performs it performs as if it were already current (and thus, a "routine" archival). The solution is to make your page current before adding the bot. The bot will keep it current, but won't fix (beyond moving it out of the way into the current archive) a page that needs cleaning up first. -- Cobi(t|c|b) 08:45, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
OK, I understood now. The bot assumes that the content to be archived belongs to the current month. I wonder if there's a way to tell the bot what should be the correct month by looking at the diffs or history instead of the signatures like MiszaBot does. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 09:08, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:DABS and Cluebot II

Any chance the bot could be run once a month to update WP:DABS (or the transcluded page, User:ClueBot II/dino) the way it did until December 2009? This would be really useful. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:41, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't know where CB II is, Cobi might... - Rich(MTCD)T|C|E-Mail 18:45, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Cobi, thank you so very much! You've saved me hours of work. Thank you! Firsfron of Ronchester 23:14, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

{{/censor}}

How did this not get caught?

This edit showed obvious profanity, and wasn't caught for eight days. HOW did that slip through the cracks? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:37, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

ClueBot NG won't revert to itself. -- Cobi(t|c|b) 02:38, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
I guess it won't. I thought that it just lets stand any revert of a Cluebot action, but it's broader than that, eh? I assume this is so Cluebot does not start, or engage in, edit wars.
This doesn't however explain why none of we human editors caught this until now. Not a high traffic page I suppose, but the history shows other quick reverts. Oh well, here's the most extreme case I have ever caught. An almost total gutting that lasted over two months! Call me "topper" but shtuff happens. --RacerX11 Talk to meStalk me 03:12, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Months? I've caught blankings that went undetected for years. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:46, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Hehe, no doubt. I realized almost as I was writing the above that someone, if not you yourself, would have far better examples. --RacerX11 Talk to meStalk me 11:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

hello

Hi, I'm updating the website of Santa Marta That He Needs a lot of information. The new information That You have placed and kick off the Spanish web site of Santa Marta. Also I have worked in the Valle del Cauca page in Spanish. It Also Says That Santa Marta has been conflito asotada with Colombian, Which is totally false and Seems to Reflect is the thinking of people who do not know Santa Marta. I ask the favor of That reverse the changes, because I'm not doing vandalism. I hope your answer thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koldorogollo (talk • contribs) 22:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Mistake reversions

this bot reverted my edit and was mistaken becasue i honestly did make the artical on the 21st century more encyclopedic i added better chronology for the 2 science fiction Sections. before me today there was no chronology at all and it was a hugh jumble so please cluebot try be careful. 76.244.151.164 (talk) 06:02, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Please use "diff" template

In edits like this one, please could ClueBot use {{Diff}}, rather than a hard-coded URL? In other words, instead of:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zamor+%28artist%29&diff=531329828&oldid=531068050 changed]

use:

  • {{Diff|Zamor (artist)|531329828|531068050|changed}}

That will avoid the bogus external link icon, and work whatever the protocol (http vs. https, en. vs. en.m. etc). Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:40, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Other machine learning approaches

Were other machine learning approaches compared during the development of Cluebot NG, and has there ever been a related publication? Have the devs ever considered holding a Kaggle-esque competition to improve the ROC? Jebus989✰ 13:55, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

thanks for your

wonderful recent edits at Ulysses Ricci. I am not sure if it is kosher to give bots awards, but you deserve something. A date with my vacuum cleaner, perhaps? Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 17:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Im fine u took out edits on Chuys

I edited Chuy's page because it said it was a stub and needed more edits. i tried 2 edit and accidentally typed tree peppers instead of three, lol. i couldnt edit that part. the page that came up when i clicked Edit. I guess u had took that out already @ that time. thx, Hannahotten (talk) 23:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Article title in bold / authority control

Hello, I am wondering at the moment why every title of the article is needed in bold at the very start, and why authority control needs to be listed.

Please let me know.

24.247.204.241 (talk) 02:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello, and thank you for your interest in Wikipedia. Normally we don't give detailed answers to general questions on this page, which is designated for questions and comments about the ClueBots (a set of programs that perform automated actions). However, since you asked, I'll give you a quick response here and I've left some links to more detailed information at User talk:24.247.204.241. Displaying the article title in bold in the first sentence is part of an effort to standardize the format of Wikipedia articles, which is defined in the Manual of Style. The authority control information is a way to link Wikipedia articles to various library catalogue systems. (You can click on the links in this paragraph for more information.) – Wdchk (talk) 04:16, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

A few interesting Cluebot archive pages

I think you might want to take a look at these. I am not entirely sure they should have been created. Probably a user config error.

·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 04:04, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Clue Bot 3 placing a copy of a talk page section into an archive but not removing the original - again

Howdy. In December I mentioned the errors that Clue Bot 3 was making. It appears to be making them again. You didn't respond back in December but I figured I'd try again. Some possibly helpful links: User talk:Rockfang/Archive 3: Revision history, User talk:Rockfang: Revision history. If you have any questions, please ask.--Rockfang (talk) 17:41, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

ANN?

I note that when reporting vandalism on user pages, ClueBot NG gives an appropriate log entry plus an ANN rating - yet nowhere is there an explanation to users of exactly what an ANN rating is, which might well be confusing to those messaged (especially if it is an accidental incorrect reversion). WP:ANN is not related (it is the milestones and anniversaries page), and ANN is not listed in WP:Glossary. As an admin who has been involved in rv, I would have expected to, but I've not heard of it before. Might I suggest that anyone who actually knows what this rating is adds it to WP:Glossary, and that this is hyperlinked when ClueBot leaves its automated messages? Grutness...wha? 21:53, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

It's a rating/summary metric from the artificial neural network (these days just called neural networks)—the machine learning method employed by Cluebot NG to classify an edit as vandalism or non-vandalism. It's not wikipedia jargon, hence not listed at that glossary. You can find a fuller explanation at Cluebot NG's userpage. I'm interested in more details about the algorithm myself (hence posted above) but it seems the maintainers don't check here very often Jebus989✰ 22:04, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for that. Grutness...wha? 10:01, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

hello

hello
rai surname is used by bhatt brahmin Bhatt the great (talk) 17:18, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Rawalpindi

I have just rearranged and deleted duplication and re-worded to make it more precise and informative Maria0333 (talk) 18:26, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Unhelpful but not vandalism

Your instructions consistently present the false dichotomy of either it's vandalism or it's constructive. I didn't find instructions for what happens when your bot makes a newbie-biting revert to an edit that was well-intentioned, even though it isn't an edit we want to keep in the article. Here's the revert. Art LaPella (talk) 19:36, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

To be fair the edit summary says possible vandalism and the talk page message says only non-constructive, in this instance the user inserted copyrighted (and badly formatted) lyrics which were right to be reverted, though of course the IP editor was in all likelihood acting in good faith. Cluebot NG's edit summary directs you to report false positives if you consider this to be one, though I expect whoever reviews the report would disagree Jebus989✰ 19:48, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Hello Tag2556 (talk) 00:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Page suggestion

I don't believe that the italicizes text is necessary in the article describing ClueBot-NG, specifically I believe that "False positive rate is set by a human, and the bot stays at or below that false positive rate, while catching as much vandalism as possible. The false positive rate is not fixed, but is adjustable" is the section that should be reworded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Turiyag (talk • contribs) 15:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Stiki review of ClueBot

I was surprised to see a valid edit by ClueBot coming up on Stiki. Andrew327 03:16, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

How to add a picture.

How do I add a picture, since I'm new here, can you please help me? BoINg! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hotpoatato (talk • contribs) 03:28, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello, and thank you for your interest in editing Wikipedia. This page is specifically intended for comments and questions about the ClueBots, a set of programs that perform automated actions on Wikipedia. So, for a full answer to your question, I will suggest some links to other places. First, you might find it useful to read Help:Files. Then if you have questions you could ask at the Help desk or the Teahouse. A word of caution – please don't upload any images until you thoroughly understand the Image use policy, particularly with regard to copyright and licensing. This can be quite a tricky area, even for experienced editors. Good luck with your editing. – Wdchk (talk) 04:54, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

ClueBot III archiving seems broken

ClueBot III is doing weird things to the archive index it's supposed to automatically build User:ClueBot III/Master Detailed Indices/Talk:2012 Benghazi attack [Revision history] is emptied out after being written, so how are we supposed to read this index? Someone complained on the talk page about missing talk, so I assume they saw an empty index as being a problem. -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 05:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

For reverting vandalism by Beautiful Angie on the Mountain Dew page. ImhotepBallZ (talk) 15:47, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

You probably want to ban this IP.

It's the IP address for a high school in that Katy ISD district in Cinco Ranch, TX. It's probably several different users vandalizing. Just figured I'd let you know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.196.188.230 (talk) 17:00, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, but ClueBot NG is not an administrator, and is therefore unable to take automated actions to block user accounts or IP addresses. Persistent, recent vandalism can be reported at WP:AIV. However, I don't see anything in the contributions of 205.196.188.230 that would currently warrant a block. (It's not up to me though, I'm not an administrator either.) – Wdchk (talk) 17:59, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
I've had a look at this, there is vandalism but the vandalism isn't recent enough for us admins to consider any blocking. If the vandalism continues please file a report at WP:AIV. Thanks.--5 albert square (talk) 19:33, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Obvious vandalism not caught?

Anonymous IP adds the word "sex". -- Magioladitis (talk) 01:04, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

The bot usually makes an edit a minute, looking at the contributions here the bot didn't make an edit for 8 mins, I'm guessing it broke or had some description of issue connecting to WP or editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Addshore (talk • contribs) 10:44, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

bot committed vandalism

In the Doritos article, the not removed a valid edit and committed vandalism. It should be punished — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bamler2 (talk • contribs) 07:47, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Since Cluebot NG always edits in good faith, by definition its edits are not vandalism. By the same standard, your well-intentioned edit that the bot reverted should not have been considered vandalism. Therefore the bot has registered a false positive. I have to say though, had your edit been correctly formatted, it would have been less likely to have been treated as vandalism. (My comments relate only to the question of vandalism. Other editors have determined that your contribution was insufficiently notable to be included in the encyclopedia, which is an entirely separate issue.) – Wdchk (talk) 17:29, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

{{/censor}}

A barnstar for you!

{{/censor}}

The copyvio on Serban Nichifor

Dear Sir, The copyvio on Serban Nichifor is NOT vandalism. This is in solidarity with the article Liana Alexandra. It is the same situation! Please, check what happened to Liana Alexandra. Sincerely Yours, Serban Nichifor,PhD--Newconsonance (talk) 18:29, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ClueBot_Commons/Archives/2013/January&oldid=1145814910"