User talk:ClueBot Commons/Archives/2018/April

This is an archive of past discussions with User:ClueBot Commons. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thanks for reverting vandalism! I don't like vandalism! HorsesAreNice (talk) 19:26, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Tannerite® is the name of a business and not that of a target.

Please stop reverting the page and let it be corrected. Jamesakameisme (talk) 19:09, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Jamesakameisme, please read the huge notices at the top of this talk page. The user you are trying to contact is a robot and not a human. I see that you have already been contacted by a human editor but please read before you post. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 00:29, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

At this Help Desk thread an IP user complains about a revert notice from three years ago, presumably when the IP address was associated with another person. Such incorrect notifications are certainly a net cost to the encyclopedia; it may be that the benefits (more false positive get catched, vandals get early warning that they do not fly under the radar, etc.) outweigh the costs but I see no discussion about that either in the BRFA or in the doc pages. I will also notice that this has already been raised back in 2013 (and also in a couple of other threads dating back to 2009, searching the archives for "IP" pops quite a few results). As of today, Cluebot NG's talk page notifications for IPs looks like this; it certainly leaves no doubt in the reader's mind that they are the ones who must have made the contentious edit.

I think whether IPs should be notified is worth a discussion (if it was not already debated) or a doc page entry (if it was). IMO it certainly needs consensus beyond the bot's operators. But even if everyone agrees 100% that Cluebot NG should notify IPs, I would suggest at the very least that in the spirit of WP:BOTCOMM a different template message is used; for instance add Someone with the same IP address as you has edited <pagename>. If it was not you, you can ignore the following message. at the top of the standard message. Checking if a user is an IP or not is relatively easy; for instance, mw:API:Users return invalid for non-registered accounts (example)), or a simple regexp check for IPv4 and IPv6 in the username is enough (WP:MISLEADNAME is well-enforced when it comes to IP-lookalikes).

Notice that "IP users can create an account" is not an answer - it is true, but the (biggest part of the) problem occurs not when the original editor fails to be notified (there is no way to make that happen with a dynamic IP) but when a reader is incorrectly notified. It is not reasonable to expect Wikipedia readers to create an account just to avoid spurious notifications. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:54, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

The bot does not currently distinguish between IPs and users when warning them (it does for other things, as certain APIs aren't available for IPs for some of the data it collects). This is by design: The template that it uses should be able to make all of the decisions around what the warning levels sound like, especially with the advancements in template markup in recent years and Lua. The templates could even be updated to hide themselves after a given period of time has passed. But these decisions are template decisions that can be made by the community on-wiki. The templates are here:

Feel free to WP:BRD on those. The template that CBNG substs is User:ClueBot NG/Warnings/Warning. The comments in that template must remain for the bot (and other tools) to recognize the warning level of a user, so perhaps WarningData or the individual level templates are better suited for modification. -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 04:10, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Could ClueBot NG's messages be more like "someone using this IP address has vandalized" instead of "If you continue your disruptive editing, you may be blocked from editing", because most IPs won't know that their IP changes from time to time. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:22, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes. They are templates that are editable:

-- Cobi^(t|c|b) 03:42, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

	Applause
	One hand clapping is as good as two, to a bot - but thanks for your programmed service! Bookbrad (talk) 15:10, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I just removed this heading from an archive. It was somehow archived by the bot, but leads to a misleading result (the sections archived underneath are not in fact from that month). Is there any way to prevent this? The same seems to have happened in the previous archive as well. Best, — Pajz (talk) 20:07, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi, if the bot undos an edit that wasn't exactly vandalism, but full of typos - does this count as a false positive? Should I report it? Anyway here is the edit in question. The same user re-edited it later with fewer typos and I added a missing space. Judith Sunrise (talk) 15:16, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Editing in order to avoid this being archived without anybody even attempting to respond. -- BobTheIP editing as 88.111.218.152 (talk) 18:35, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

@Judith Sunrise: Go ahead and report it. It's a false positive, and reports are processed by humans, so it's fine. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 02:46, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. Yeah, I did report it and I added a comment about what exactly went wrong. Thank you again. Judith Sunrise (talk) 14:32, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	You've beaten me to vandalism three times already. YourTypicalWikipedian (talk) 11:26, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} The captcha only displays a message that it was shut down on 2018-3-31, and that you need to get a captcha upgrade. This prevents anonymous reports, and also prevents creating an account.

I'll file the false-postive report here. That's better than losing it permanently:

• The Cluebot revert id: 3341697
• A link to the Cluebot revert:[1]
• Comment: The IP built their change in a series of three edits in three minutes. I see no apparent reason Cluebot would have targeted this edit, other than it was an IP edit. I double checked the source, the edit was accurate. The edit was made in good faith. The new text was more precise, but in my opinion it was neither better nor worse. We don't want good faith neutral-value edits reverted. Alsee (talk) 12:09, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Editing in order to avoid this being archived without anybody even attempting to respond. -- BobTheIP editing as 92.29.28.146 (talk) 16:28, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} False positive: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Universiteti_i_Prishtin%C3%ABs&diff=next&oldid=836562142&diffmode=source

ID: 3348626

This is definitely not vandalism -- I wouldn't even consider it to be disruptive. I am not the user who made this edit, but I saw this reversion on Huggle (because it scored high on ORES). Seems to be one of the really few actual false-positives; one of the very few reports that are not made by upset vandals. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:28, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} Making a false positive report here as the usual page is down. This edit was not vandalism. Please ping if anything else is required from me :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:47, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} I reverted a bit of swastika vandalism here that involved insertion of repeated ISO characters for clockwise and counter clockwise swastikas on a page. I'm concerned that vandals might see this getting through and try to repeat it en masse. I don't know if Cluebot takes "requests" but if so I nominate a filter to catch and revert this.

Just an idea...

Thanks. --KNHaw ^(talk) 20:31, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

@KNHaw: (Non-bot programmer comment) I don't believe ClueBot can be modified in this way, but if this becomes a persistent form of vandalism, an edit filter can easily be used to prevent it. Passengerpigeon (talk) 21:25, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. That does seem a better approach. I will propose an edit filter if I see this again. --KNHaw ^(talk) 22:05, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} this was a false positive. L293D (☎ • ✎) 23:05, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} How is "semi-retired" vandalism? She literally doesn't wrestle anymore but hasn't officially retired. Yikes. Dontpostblockryan (talk) 01:13, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} Hello, this vandalism reversion was an error; it reverted good-faith and constructive edits. Graham87 09:16, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} Reporting false positive at Transgender at rev 833751239.

While I agree that a revert was warranted in this case, the reason is wrong:

A transgender Not all transsexual women get or want sex therapy. Some transsexual women refuse to undergo sex exchange surgery. Transgendered sexes not only recognize themselves as opposite sex to their physical counterparts.

This is not vandalism, it's poor grammar and confused wording, and sounds like it was written by someone whose native language is not English. But as far as it goes, the passage is actually accurate, and mostly needs copy-editing and a citation. Mathglot (talk) 20:29, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed that User:ClueBot_III/Indices/Talk:Republic_of_Artsakh is incorrectly sorted. Looking through the history of that page, all the "+" edits by ClueBot make it sorted correctly (but change the links to Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh Republic/*, but then the "-" edits put it back in the same wrongly sorted state (but the links are to Talk:Republic of Artsakh/* as they should be). What can be done about this? I looked through the FAQ, but couldn't find any information on this. – gpvos (talk) 17:57, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

@Gpvos: I've fixed the archiveprefix parameter on the talk page and reverted the index to the last semi--sensible version, which should hopefully solve this issue. Graham87 09:13, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

While attempting to report this false positive, I was stopped because the Captcha is broken. Instead of displaying a Captcha, it displays "V1 SHUTDOWN ON 2018-03-31 Direct site owners to g.co/recaptcha/upgrade". -- BobTheIP editing as 92.29.29.149 (talk) 17:46, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I hope this gets noticed soon and fixed. I reported this twice here last month and it has been ignored and archived both times… StephenWade (talk) 01:54, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Editing in order to avoid this being archived without anybody even attempting to respond. -- BobTheIP editing as 88.111.218.152 (talk) 18:36, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Pinging Cobi for a response. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 02:46, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

DamianZaremba/Rich Smith, can either of you take care of this? -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 17:12, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

It looks like DamianZaremba fixed the CAPTCHA on the report site. -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 13:30, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Who will rid me of this troublesome priestWho will rid me of this troublesome priest was a redirect to a section of Thomas Becket, presumably created before Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest? existed. I changed the target and was reverted by ClueBot NG with an edit summary of "possible vandalism". 2001:BB6:4709:C258:EC49:6DA1:2EC7:13F1 (talk) 10:41, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

You were also reverted by CASSIOPEIA, so you should now seek consensus before reinstating the edit. You can do that on the redirect talk page, or you can discuss it directly with CASSIOPEIA.- MrX 🖋 10:55, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi User:2001:BB6:4709:C258:EC49:6DA1:2EC7:13F1, Hi, I have checked and read through both of the articles and notice the Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest? has updated with many edits since 2010 and deems to be a stand alone article, for that is the reason of the redirect from user:2001:BB6:4709:C258:EC49:6DA1:2EC7:13F1. It is a good faith edit and I have reverted it and removed of the tags on false positive ground. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:32, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

https://tools.wmflabs.org/cluebotng/?page=View&id=135719 ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:51, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Shouldn't this have been a second level warning, under the same "April 2018" header that I created? Eman235/talk 18:13, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

It was more than 2 days after your warning which is the threshold where ClueBot NG decides a warning is stale, so it ignored that warning. -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 18:31, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

What's the reasoning for this? If someone waits more than 2 days between vandalizing wikipedia, they need to start over with basic warnings again? Natureium (talk) 17:07, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Especially for IPs and public computers, it could have been given to someone else in that time. There was a discussion around it on IRC when the original ClueBot's BRFA was being considered, and there is a reference there to that discussion, but it's never really been changed since. -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 17:27, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm wondering what ClueBot NG does with edits that are straddling between genuine edits and outright vandalism. Does it get forwarded to relevant groups for additional checking? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CommanderOzEvolved (talk • contribs) 03:58, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

We send them to STiki to be reviewed by humans. -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 04:16, 27 April 2018 (UTC)