User talk:ClueBot Commons/Archives/2018/December

Question regarding ClueBot III

I have a question regarding ClueBot III's manner of archiving discussions listed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. I am interested in knowing what conditions signal the bot to archive a particular entry that is listed on the aforementioned page? More particularly, I want to ensure that placing {{doing}} or {{closing}} in an entry's section will not trigger an archiving of the section. If somehow either of these tags would signal an entry as being ready for archiving, can an instruction be added telling the bot not to trigger such an action based on the presence of either of these tags? Thank you.--John Cline (talk) 10:07, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

@John Cline: (talk page stalker) The page uses the "archivenow" parameter to tell the bot about the templates that should trigger early archiving. {{doing}} or {{closing}} are not mentioned in that parameter, so you're fine. See User:ClueBot_III/ArchiveThis#Optional parameters. -- John of Reading (talk) 10:20, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much.--John Cline (talk) 10:25, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

User:2k32k

Hi can you block this User he is saying that Bigg Boss 11 is fancruft when is not and plus disrupting the page please block him. And can you protect Bigg Boss 11 for 2 months and get the voting history, vote count and weekly summary back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.198.148 (talk) 10:56, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

And can you protect Bigg Boss 11 for 2 months and get the voting history, vote count and weekly summary back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.150.219.227 (talk) 11:01, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

ClueBot NG is not an administrator and cannot block users. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for administrator attention if you would like to contact an administrator. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 14:54, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi IP,

I have just noticed this and decided to look over it for you. In all honesty, the edits look to be well intentioned and not vandalism. If you believe that something should or should not be included in an article, you could try starting a conversation on either the article talk page or the relevant user talk page.

I would also not protect the article. Looking at the history, there is insufficient recent vandalism to do this.

In future, if you wish assistance from an administrator, please click the links provided by K6ka, as ClueBot NG is a robot without administrator privileges it cannot do anything. If you wish to report a vandal you can file a report at WP:AIV. If you wish to request page protection this can be done via WP:RFPP. 5 albert square (talk) 01:54, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Does CBNG acknowledge removed warnings?

I just noticed here that ClueBot NG ignored the earlier warnings I had given this user (because the user subsequently blanked them) and started over with a level 1 notice. Is this intentional? I thought it acknowledged previous warnings, even if they had been erased. Home Lander (talk) 19:51, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

@Home Lander: The bot does not look through the page history for previous warnings. I believe Huggle doesn't acknowledge previous warnings either. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 14:12, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

The bot does count history when ingesting data about the user for purposes of deciding whether or not to revert. However, this is a basic metric and doesn't translate well to a specific warning level. The bot only looks at the current talk page for previous warnings when calculating what the next warning level should be. It also ignores warnings over 2 days old since those are likely to be a previous session of vandalism. Since the timespan is pretty short as it is, the bot doesn't think it necessary to dive into the edit history, and even then you have to deal with what happens when someone other than the editor in question reverted the warning. -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 22:28, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Archiving Errors

Its appears that ClueBot III is archiving sections at WP:GL/ILL off by a month. Pbroks13 (talk) 14:49, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Please keep a watch on Yudirai account. He is the person vandalizing Mangalore related articles with poor Tulu content

I request you to please keep a watch on this user account Yudisthir Shivaprasad Rai Yudirai(talk).
He is the same person who is repeatedly vandalizing Mangalore related articles with Tulu/Tulunadu content, using multiple accounts.
Yesterday, the Mangalore article got protected from IP edits due to his Tulu related vandalisms.
On 18th July 2018, the Tulu Nadu received page protection from his IP related vandalism. But, since Yudirai(talk) user is autoconfirmed, he again vandalized that article the very next day.
He has also vandalized the Bunt (community) article as well. The user account Bunt56(talk) is a sock-puppet of Yudirai(talk).
He could certainly vandalize the Mangalore, Dakshina Kannada articles once again.
106.216.179.116 (talk) 09:07, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi IP,

ClueBot NG is a computer program and not human therefore it cannot watch user accounts. I have looked at the edits made and since they haven't edited since October, I am unable to take any action. If they do start editing again and the edits are obvious vandalism, please file a report at WP:AIV.

As ClueBot NG is not a CheckUser, it is unable to check if accounts are operated by the same person. If you suspect an editor of abusively using more than one account, please file a report at WP:SPI. Thanks.-- 5 albert square (talk) 12:03, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Sasha Grey

False positive on Sasha Grey: total changes, trigger, redo. –84.46.52.222 (talk) 01:17, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Resolved

 – found a working "click here" here, ID 3567053 reported, I think I missed the "submit" button and input field at the bottom of the long false positive report form.

–84.46.52.222 (talk) 01:36, 25 December 2018 (UTC)