Jump to content

User talk:ClueBot Commons/Archives/2017/July

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


Possible ClueBot NG bug (or someone trying to imitate ClueBot NG)

I found this edit [[1]] that is in the format of ClueBot NG's revert reports from an IP which appears to be reverting lowercase sigmabot's edits. Is this a bug? [Username Needed] 12:39, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

@Username Needed: This was not CBNG's edit, for obvious reasons. 1) CBNG does not monitor pages outside the mainspace, so it wouldn't have edited there in the first place; 2) The edit summary was badly formatted; it linked to Lowercase sigmabot II instead of Special:Contribs/Lowercase sigmabot II, linked to the IP address of the user who made the edit it was reverting to (A real ClueBot NG edit summary will never wikilink that); and 3) The "Report False Positive?" part is not linked to WP:CBFP. The user who made that edit was a run-of-the-mill vandal. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 13:08, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

CB3 failing to create archive index pages (redux)

I know there have been identified issues lately with CB3 archiving user talk pages so I hope I'm not identifying an issue which has already been discussed. I noticed today that CB3 is failing to create or update its detailed index pages when it archives my user talk. My index was created automatically back in January, complete with three detailed index pages from my existing archives at the time. Then, in April, it added a link to its detailed index 4 ([[2]]) but it did not create the index, User:ClueBot III/Detailed Indices/User talk:Ivanvector/Archive 4 is a redlink. It's done the same more recently for a fifth archive, so the index is broken. I'm not sure how to fix this, I could create the detailed indices manually but that's tedious, I'd rather see the problem fixed. Is it a bug or do I have something set up incorrectly? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:38, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Also, this series of edits of CB3 creating an index and then reverting itself over and over again doesn't look hopeful. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:05, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Bumping this again. I know there are people watching this page who are at least somewhat familiar with the operation of the bot, and I would appreciate some sort of constructive reply even if it's "we don't know how to fix it, stop bothering us". Cheers. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:30, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
    • [I] don't know how to fix it, stop bothering [me] —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 13:42, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

@K6ka: Clue the third stopped archiving again. We should contact Cobie
—usernamekiran(talk) 20:31, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Bot,

The "report false positive" link in your first-level vandalism warning (and maybe others, haven't checked) is broken. See User_talk:66.87.30.121 for an example with the broken link. It looks like this. This link from your edit summary still works.

Cheers, Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 02:02, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Pinging Rich Smith, DamianZaremba, and Cobi. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 19:24, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

CB3 is ignoring my TP

I have noticed that CB3 hasn't been archiving my talk page near-daily, as it used to. I checked, and the bot is still working for other people, and my code hasn't changed. Does anyone know why since 6/21/17 it would ignore me? I tweaked my DNAUs as well. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 12:43, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

@L3X1: Maybe this was the glitch. I removed it boldly, in goodfaith. If it still doesnt archive after say 24 hours, then it wasnt the problem lol. —usernamekiran(talk) 00:22, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Usernamekiran! I hope that is the problem. I added the DNAU to that part, because when I started out using CB3, it archived its own instructions and then archived the archived. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 01:18, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes! CB3 just operated successfully. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 19:40, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:Album ratings

IPs has been adding extra reviews like this in the template in some articles lately, while the guidelines clearly says only add ten reviews. Can the bot revert these edits who add reviews more than ten?

Note: I have requested at WP:BOTQUEST for this issue, but didn't get a quick response. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 02:28, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
@TheAmazingPeanuts: ClueBot NG is an anti-vandalism bot, and doesn't generally revert good faith but misguided edits (Like in your case). You probably want an edit filter instead, or another bot, but ClueBot NG is not suitable for this job. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 11:59, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
@K6ka: Could you recommend any other bots please? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 07:32, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

ClueBotNG's edits not marked as bot edits

My Watchlist is set to filter out bot edits, but I still see edits by ClueBotNG. Is this intentional, or something that should be fixed? Obviously not a huge issue, just curious. GiovanniSidwell (talk) 18:34, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

@GiovanniSidwell: It's intentional, see User:ClueBot NG/FAQ § Why don't ClueBot NG's edits show up as bot edits?. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 18:46, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Of course there's a FAQ I just completely missed, thanks. GiovanniSidwell (talk) 18:53, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Microfiche and microchips

DoctorWho42 has given you microchips! Microchips promote WikiLove (📖💞) and hopefully this one has made your day more efficient. It is the food best preferred by bots. 🤖 Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else microchips, whether it be someone you have had robot wars with in the past or a good friend.


Spread the goodness of motor oil by adding {{subst:Microchips for you}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

-🐦Do☭torWho42 (⭐) 07:16, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Cluebot III bug

The bot just moved a discussion from Talk:The Institutes for the Achievement of Human Potential to Talk:The Institutes for the Achievement of Human Potential 3 (which was then marked for speedy deletion as a talk page of a nonexistent article). I assume it meant to move it to Talk:The Institutes for the Achievement of Human Potential/Archive 3 but I've moved the page it created to Archive 4 instead. Hut 8.5 20:43, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

So this has been bugging me...

Whatever happened to ClueBot V? There's a IV and a VI, but no V. Why is this? Are there any other "missing" ClueBots? WikiSquirrel42 (talk) 22:42, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

There is a ClueBot V, WikiSquirrel42. It just didn't get approved for the task it was supposed to do. SkyWarrior 22:45, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Run

Why did you shut down ClueBot III?!?!?! - 64.237.233.180 (talk) 16:56, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

We did not...? —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 10:56, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Where is the false positives list?

The false positives section says "To report a false positive, or to see a full list of all false positives, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ClueBot_NG/FalsePositives." That page has information about how to submit a false positive but doesn't have a list of false positives. Is there a corrected link for the list of false positives? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.26.157.145 (talk) 17:21, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

The list of false positives requires a bit more sleuthing to find, but here it is. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 22:31, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

ClueBot NG is linking to missing pages on tools.wmflabs.org

Hi. Hopefully, someone who knows what they're doing will see this. An IP editor recently posted a note to ANI that said ClueBot NG is linking to missing pages on tools.wmflabs.org, such as this link, which seems to have been added in this edit to the IP editor's talk page. The IP editor made this edit, and ClueBot NG reverted it with this edit. That's about all the info I have. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:14, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

First reported on 3 July, see User talk:ClueBot Commons/Archives/2017/July#Broken link in user warning: Noyster (talk), 12:47, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Pinging Rich Smith, DamianZaremba, and Cobi (again). In the meantime, I assume the links at WP:CBNGFP still work for reporting false positives manually? —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 22:29, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
We might have to file a bug report somewhere. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:15, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Cluebot III on a hungry indices rampage

@Rich Smith and DamianZaremba: Something is very broken. TheDragonFire (talk) 05:33, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

What's up with Cluebot NG nowadays?

I've never never seen something like happening. Someone vandalising Wikipedia, only to remove his edit because nobody reverted it! I would have expected that this was something that ClueBot would've reverted. Please, clear my cognitive bias, but has ClueBot NG become a bit lax? I've noticed this a few other times as well. My name isnotdave (talk/contribs) 17:14, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

ClueBot NG doesn't reckon to catch all vandalism. It could be set to catch nearly all of it but at the price of annoying many good-faith contributors with a high rate of false positives. See User:ClueBot_NG#Statistics: Noyster (talk), 18:08, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
I know about that, it just doesn't seem to be so effective nowadays, but...I don't know. I'll be quiet). My name isnotdave (talk/contribs) 07:42, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
@My name is not dave: That's a fairly subtle form of vandalism and I don't think we can blame CBNG for missing it (After all, if it did catch that then I'm sure we'd get far more false positives, and the community seems to find more problems with false positives than unreverted vandalism, as the AN/ANI archives show!). Besides, I've seen vandals helpfully revert their own unconstructive edits before. Perhaps they weren't actually sure that you could actually edit Wikipedia just like that, and that your changes would be published immediately. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 12:00, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

you undid my edit

Why did you when you should read the text instead of undoing edits — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qutaro (talk • contribs) 20:09, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

@Qutaro: Please read the messages at the top of this page. ClueBot NG is a robot and is not a human. If you think that the bot has made an error, please report it here, not on this page. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 23:49, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Pending changes 1

Nothing too huge, but Cluebot's vandalism reverts don't autoaccept themselves on pages with PC-1 applied, even though it has reviewer rights assigned. Exhibit A: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shakthi_Vasudevan&action=history 15 minutes before this post.

A ticket has been raised as to admins / XCon users not having their changes automatically accepted here but I think this is a bot issue. Cheers — IVORK Discuss 05:54, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @IVORK: See the first question in the Pending changes FAQ - this revert can't be marked accepted, because earlier edits, by 2405:204:71ca:2256::1e87:c8a4, have not been reviewed yet. There was a recent thread at VPT where an admin's edit was not marked as "accepted" for the same reason. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:10, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes, why does ClueBot NG have the PC-reviewer right? In a case like the above it doesn't appear to be using this right to accept its own edits to PC-protected pages, and I don't know that we would want it to, as it is not infallible: Noyster (talk), 09:39, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ClueBot_Commons/Archives/2017/July&oldid=1140701592"