User talk:ClueBot Commons/Archives/2019/March

ClueBot NG issue

This issue has been raised here before but it was previously archived without a response from the bot operators. I think I know why ClueBot NG isn't reporting users to AIV. It may have happened when its edit summary was changed to "Edit by (username/IP) has been reverted by ClueBot NG due to possible noncompliance with Wikipedia guidelines. Report False Positive? (Report #) (Bot)", but after it was changed back to the original edit summary, that must have broken the bot when reporting users. Pinging User:Cobi and User:Rich Smith. — MRD2014 ^Talk 15:23, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Cobi Rich Smith is there any update on this so far? I've just come across this edit, the user already had a level 4 warning for a personal attack on Shellwood so the bot should have reported this user to AIV. However it didn't.-- 5 albert square (talk) 09:04, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

ClueBot NG just reported a user to AIV. Hopefully it has been fixed. — MRD2014 ^Talk 00:44, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I'll watch it for the next few days but hopefully it is now back reporting at AIV. MRD2014 I emailed pretty much everyone on ClueBot NG's user page earlier to try and get it fixed. Welcome back ClueBot NG - AIV's missed ya!-- 5 albert square (talk) 01:12, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

DamianZaremba if it was you that fixed this - thank you -- 5 albert square (talk) 02:17, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Bug Report

I have noticed that ClueBotNG does not warn users correctly. If a warning already exists for the current month, but was not issued by ClueBot, it will create a new heading for the month with a level one warning, even if the user had already received a level 4 warning earlier in the month. Jeb³_{Talk at me here} 14:13, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

That's not a bug Jebcubed. I'm sure I remember this being mentioned before - I just can't find whereabouts for this bot. I'm sure Cobi will correct me if I'm wrong. CBNG starts the warning process from the start again if a certain amount of time has passed - from memory it's 48 hours for the bot. As it then reverts back to the level 1 warning and therefore starting the process again, this is why it creates a new header.-- 5 albert square (talk) 02:17, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

I was noticing this behavior within ~24 hours. I saw some instances where someone had already left a level 1 warning less than an hour before ClueBot, and ClueBot created a new month header with another level 1 warning. I think that it isn't part of what you've pointed out above 5 albert square. Jeb³_{Talk at me here} 13:58, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Archiving Errors

Its appears that ClueBot III is archiving sections at WP:GL/ILL off by a month. Pbroks13 (talk) 18:31, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

yes, Can someone take a look at my talk page history explain why the threads are archived to 2018 archive instead of 2019 archive. thanks in advance. --DBigXrayᗙ 15:34, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Because the natural age of archival on your page is set to 3800 hours. 3800 is 158 days. 158 days ago is still 2018. -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 00:27, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Double-quick vandalism

I just noticed this series of edits at Tardigrade: [1][2][3].

My guess is that CB would have seen the first as vandalism too, but got distracted by the second. I mention this in case it's possible to improve something. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:52, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey there

Great job Cluebot ng! You have done a very good job on your latest mission in operation wikipedia endurance. Thank you for your efforts!

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		message Thatphatguy (talk) 13:12, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Just so you know, we are arming your bomber with a-v emp bombs(Fictional) that will destroy vandal bases. Sort of like at shells, these act as at shells toward vandalization.

Cluebot NG is down

As it says in the section header. Cluebot NG hasn't edited in four days. Hopefully, everyone who is involved in its' upkeep knows already, but I wanted to make Absolutely Certain. -- I dream of horses  If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message  (talk to me) (My edits) @ 04:52, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Should we try giving Cluebot some Wikilove - maybe bots get discouraged if they're taken for granted. Hope you're enjoying your rest Cluebot, but please come back soon - we miss you. GirthSummit _(blether) 07:53, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I emailed Rich Smith about it three days ago but haven't gotten a response yet. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 17:22, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

​We really should have a backup or something of this bot.. it's become quite integral! What if something happens to User:Cobi? The source code is public, can another user compile and run it on their machine? K6ka, have you tried emailing Cobi? -- œ^™ 05:46, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, it's already running on the WMF Labs, and User:DamianZaremba, User:Rich Smith, and I all have access to it. -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 18:11, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

The bot is back up and running. As a plus, it's reporting users to AIV again. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 16:49, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Good to have you back buddy. Thanks to everyone who gave you that much-needed relaxing oil bath.GirthSummit _(blether) 17:07, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I gave it a kick, there is monitoring of edits flowing which emails us, however it does not always line up nicely with people's life/work/travel status. Doesn't appear to be any major issues currently, so I don't foresee this happening again in the near future. - Damian Zaremba ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:42, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Link is broken

Dear @Cobi: http://review.cluebot.cluenet.org/ from Cobi Carter — Cobi (talk · contribs) — wrote and maintains the Wikipedia interface code and review interface.

is currently broken Xinbenlv (talk) 19:14, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

This is a known issue and has been for a while. Thanks for reporting it however. - Damian Zaremba ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:42, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Just a suggestion

You might want to add a comment section to some of the pages you monitor.

Obviously your watched by a human....

The most oftenly viewed/edited pages deserve a comment section.... MatthewLSr. (talk) 07:52, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Nope. That's not what Wikipedia is. Your edit was reverted by the bot because you added general chit chat into an article. You can chat with other editors about Wikipedia-related topics on their talk page. You can discuss how to improve articles on the relevant article talk page.-- 5 albert square (talk) 00:51, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

The Wikipedia community has generally rejected the idea of allowing off-topic discussions on-wiki as well. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 10:00, 29 March 2019 (UTC)