User talk:ClueBot Commons

Praise should go on the praise page. Barnstars and other awards should go on the awards page.
Use the "new section" button at the top of this page to add a new section. Use the [edit] link above each header to edit that header.
This page is automatically archived by ClueBot III.
ClueBot's owner or someone else who knows the answer to your question will reply on this page.

Beware! This user's talk page is monitored by talk page watchers. Some of them even talk back.

Still not archiving

Further to User_talk:ClueBot_Commons/Archives/2011/September#Not_archiving, the bot still doesn't seem to have visited User talk:Citation bot. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 02:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Hmm the bot is running, I'll have a look though the logs and see why it isn't touching the page - might have to get User:Cobi to look at it. - Damian Zaremba ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:23, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks – I appreciate you looking into this. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 03:52, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Protection of User:ClueBot NG/Run

At the moment, this page is semiprotected, but there's a request for full protection at WP:RFPP, and the requesting editor has noted that the "Documentation" section of the userpage refers to those who edit the page to stop the bot exclusively as admins, rather than as editors. Against this I would support the current format: the page's history shows that it's never gotten significant vandalism (except for one editor that was warring over it), and we've only had two incidents of vandalism all year. To me (I'm saying this as an admin), it seems reasonable that average registered users should be able to stop the bot temporarily. Moreover, I don't see the point of an admin-only page to stop the bot: we admins can already stop the bot by blocking it, so the only real use of a page like this is if it can be edited by non-admins. Nyttend (talk) 04:07, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Personally I see it like this - admins are invited to stop the bot by blocking it if it is doing bizarre things (as they should and would), having a run page that the bot 'soft checks' (by soft I mean if it is functioning correctly then it will follow) is useful for many purposes. Due to the lack of vandalism I don't personally support it being protected - I've used it a few times and find it useful when debugging/tweaking the bot. If the page was being vandalised often then I would support the check being removed over the page being protected - there is no point having 2 places to do one thing! - Damian Zaremba ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:14, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I've never considered that the page was meant as a method for non-admins to shut down the bot, but that sounds reasonable. As Nyttend says, the page isn't actively vandalized, and even if it is, nothing drastic results from it (e.g., the bot will not malfunction). Someone will just spot it and change it back to "true". So I withdraw my request for full protection of the page. Goodvac (talk) 15:16, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I actually raised the concern about this on ANI. I do admit it isn't that vandalized. So instead, we could create an edit filter that automatically prevents any vandals that changes the page to anything other than "True" and "False".OpenInfoForAll (talk) 22:14, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the point in the page being fully protected. I've looked at the page tonight and over the course of the last few weeks I think the page has only been vandalised once. If it was being constantly vandalised by a number of editors that would be a different story. At the minute though any request for full protection would fail though simply because of not enough vandalism on the page. --5 albert square (talk) 22:18, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Teach ClueBot NG to recognize something new?

The article Overblood has been getting persistent vandalism since last January — almost always including the same bit of garbage (albeit with a few variant spellings). You can check the article's history to see what I'm talking about. Is there any way to get ClueBot NG's cluefulness level raised so it will detect this? Richwales (talk) 02:55, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

User:ClueBot NG/AngryOptin. →Στc. 05:10, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Is the point of this page just to complain about the bot?