User talk:ClueBot Commons/Archives/2009/February

False Positive reporting still broken
User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow

Can't report a false positive. Can't reach the host 24.40.131.153 at all.

No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * yeah this is kinda crap. it wont let me report a false positive on my edit 129.2.131.1 (talk) 04:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Which edit was that, could you link me? Trusilver  04:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Same problem here. Can't reach the host. this edit (id 551415) by 98.234.95.75 was a false positive (he/she removed a big chunk of spam manually). -- NathanoNL [ usr | msg |  log ]  02:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Same problem here. So frustrating. I can't reach the host either to report false positive (cluebot 552922) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.40.50.60 (talk) 21:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Cluebot is really presumptious. It says "Report it", not "Please report it".  It makes it sound like you have no choice but to accept Cluebot's reverts unless you choose to defend it by going through the process of reporting it, which I found to be impossible to understand, and apparently doesn't work.  For something that is actively soliciting feedback for improvements, that's a bad message to send. 70.251.1.149 (talk) 17:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Not fair! I cant use the reporting thing it says the pg cant be found 72.128.4.129 (talk) 00:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Same problem. Completely unfair procedure. Wikipedia administartors should close it down until false positives can be reported. (cluebot 564137) Politicalguy1234 (talk) 18:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You can just revert ClueBot, you know. Inferno,   Lord of   Penguins  21:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Overwriting user talk page
This edit appeared to overwrite the warnings previously left on the user's talk page, rather than appending a new message to the bottom. Was this intentional? —  Tivedshambo   (t/c) (logged on as Pek) 11:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Duplicate section headers
I notice that ClueBot frequently inserts duplicate section headers on users' talk pages, e.g. January 2009 where there is already a section January 2009. This makes it less obvious how many vandalism warnings have been given to the user during the current month. Would it be possible to update the bot to avoid inserting such duplicate headers? David Biddulph (talk) 09:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Could someone please reply to this, rather than just archiving it without replying? David Biddulph (talk) 11:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Your bot added a 2nd, 3rd and 4th section header January 2009 to User talk:194.83.71.173 where that section header already existed. What is the logic for that?  David Biddulph (talk) 19:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I came here because I noticed this as well, on User talk:65.39.114.66. The problem is not only that it makes it annoying to find how many times they have been warned, but it prevents the user from being warned properly, with escalating severity. -kotra (talk) 20:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * User talk:ClueBot Commons/Archives/2007/October -- Cobi(t 21:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * So isn't it about time that it did something better? David Biddulph (talk) 21:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I see now that ClueBot is not actually designed to escalate the warnings, but that would be extremely helpful if it could be made to. Right now, it is essentially welcoming the user every time, warning them with the first level of warning. Which is probably the best warning to use if it can only do one, but it could give the user the impression that they are being given a clean break after they've been warned for vandalism many times. Essentially what I'm asking is can the bot recognize existing warnings in the current month and formulate its own warning one level higher? As a bot, of course it wouldn't work 100% of the time, but it would be better than it is now I think. -kotra (talk) 21:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This is incorrect. ClueBot reads the warning from the last few days and if it finds one, it puts one that is one level up.  It just doesn't read ones from several days ago, as this is what it was approved to do.  If it doesn't find a warning in the last few days, it puts a level 1, then a level 2, then a level 3, then a level 4, then reports to WP:AIV.  -- Cobi(t 21:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I see, thanks for explaining. I still see a couple problems with how it was approved, then. First, if the warning level should "reset", I don't think it should be as quickly as a few days. The "reset", as I understand it, is to take into consideration that a totally new individual may be using the IP address. However, from Wikipedia's perspective, the way we stop vandalism from IPs is by blocking the IP address, not the individual (which is impossible). Therefore, the warnings, which inform administrators when to block, should escalate according to the IP address's behavior, not the individual's behavior. So an argument could be made that resetting the warning level should never occur, because it's all the same IP address. However, I don't take that stance because we routinely "forgive" users (and IPs) for stuff they did years or several months ago. Therefore, I think resetting should occur wherever there's a lengthy gap in edits. But since that would mean scrutinizing the IP's contribs, most of the time we take a shortcut and just reset at the beginning of each month. It's not perfect, but it's a little less forgiving than just a few days (I'd assume vandals often take breaks for a few days, even if just for weekends when they're out of school).
 * Second, I don't think it should be reset all the way back to level 1. Since level 1 is as an assume-good-faith welcome to new users, it doesn't need to be used more than once: they've already been welcomed. Even if the IP has a new person behind it, it's not necessary: in 99% of cases they'll still have the original welcome on their talk page to read, and a "you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users" link at the bottom of the page.
 * Aside all this, it would be very helpful if ClueBot didn't create a new header for the same month. If ClueBot can see if there have been warnings in the last few days, I think there may be a way for it to see if there have been warnings in the current month, and if so, have it find the section # for the section those warnings were last placed in, and then have it follow the edit link for that section by using that section #. But this is all up to you, of course. I appreciate you taking the time to explain, and for making a bot that is a net gain to the project. -kotra (talk) 02:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey sorry
Sorry about vandalism. can you talk to me on my talk page plz —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.222.33.52 (talk) 23:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC) Hello! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lolipoprox (talk • contribs) 03:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

ClueBot showing in recent changes
For some reason, ClueBot still shows up in recent changes when bots are supposed to be hidden. I don't know why, but I thought I should alert you. Inferno,  Lord of   Penguins  17:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * ClueBot is not supposed to flag its edits. See here.  -- Cobi(t 01:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Whenever I'm on RC, I almost always hide bot edits. The only edits by ClueBot that I see are its warnings; the reverts are in the "Show bot edits" link. SF3  (talk!) 02:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

It was not vandalism.
I understand that my edit did not appear constructive, but all I did was removing extraneous information. Listing all the fashion shows that Emina Cunmulaj had attended from 2004 to 2009 is ridiculous. 71.230.69.234 (talk) 20:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Archive malfunction?
Cobi replied to a comment regarding the False Positive button which isn't working at 02:02 (UTC), but only 28 minutes later, ClueBot III archived that comment. Doesn't the code of this page say that ClueBot III archives a post 72 hours after it was last commented in? Hmm... SF3 (talk!) 02:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * More specifically, I put archive tags around it. ClueBot III saw them and archived it appropriately ...  -- Cobi(t 03:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Change in behaviour
Just wondering when ClueBot started reverting more then once per page in 24h. 05:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Reposting this question from the archives to get an answer. Q  T C 04:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Uhh ... it is? -- Cobi(t 04:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Index appearing
Any idea what's causing the strange index of articles to appear under the archive box at WT:Naming conventions (geographic names)? Is it anything to do with "index" or some other parameter in the bot's template? I don't like to change anything since I don't want to mess up the archiving, and I can't find any documentation for these parameters.--Kotniski (talk) 16:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

ClueBot overwriting previous entries?
ClueBot appears to have completely overwritten previous entries in this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A216.45.237.43&diff=268942761&oldid=268942740 Is it working correctly? Nunquam Dormio (talk) 18:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * To echo the above question, in this edit, ClueBot overwrote previous warnings given to a user. Is that supposed to happen? ♥ Nici ♥ Vampire ♥ Heart ♥ 18:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry.
Deepest regrets. My edit was a mistake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Babalooeybabalooey2468 (talk • contribs) 01:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!
For keeping an eye on Salwa Judum and reverting vandalism. --Ekabhishek (talk) 06:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Changing Larbanois Carreiro by Larbanois Carrero.
A typing error by mistakenly thought the article Larbanois Carreiro in English. The correct name and the article is clean and corrected with the correct name Larbanois Carrero. Would appreciate being able to remove the page Larbanois Carreiro qiue and the name is incorrect and is not clean —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.135.172.138 (talk) 17:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Index appearing
It was not vandalism about Filipe (footballer), because he is a people, but redirect go to the football club. It is a different theme. P.S. Excuse me my bad English —Preceding unsigned comment added by YarikUkraine (talk • contribs) 16:39, 7 February 2009

Answer
Are you human?
 * It's named "ClueBot" for a reason.... J.delanoy gabs adds  16:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

ClueBot IV - partial results: missing nmap, proxy tests.
Copied from discussion at 71.228.220.209 from here:(1st 3 entries below) Does ClueBot IV actually perform/cause a proxy scan to occur, or does it just look up the IP in open proxy lists. Looking at an WPOPreports page might lead one to conclude it's just doing the latter, but that seems like a bad idea. Clarification would be good.--Elvey (talk) 8:31 am, 2 February 2009, Monday
 * ClueBot does both. It checks reverse DNS, WHOIS, a couple blacklists (including some tor blacklists), and then does a Nmap. Calvin 1998 (t·c) 8:46 pm, 2 February 2009, Monday
 * Thanks. Turns out that sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. This is the entry that led me to ask the question - it has only WhoIs and DNSBL sections. What's up with that one?--Elvey (talk) 11:59 am (last pasted entry)
 * BTW, it seems the bot hasn't run for several days.--Elvey (talk) 20:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Michigan State University student riot
It was a constructive edit, as the reasoning I wrote in the bar above "save page" demonstrates. Unfortunately, robots cannot red. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.211.103 (talk) 01:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

false-positive reporting tool down?
The false-positive-reporting tool seems inaccessible at this time. Bwrs (talk) 05:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Bollywood films and plagiarism
Your edits on the respective page has been reverted, previous list is not sourced. It has been replaced by a list of sourced plagiarised films. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Dark Wizard (talk • contribs) 09:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Escalating warnings
I hope you don't think I'm being annoying (you didn't respond to my last comment), but I have one last comment that may interest you. I noticed that SoxBot III appears to be escalating its warnings successfully: ,,. So there seems to be a way to do it, if you're inclined. -kotra (talk) 21:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Elijah McCoy
"The vandals took the handles." The vandalism on this page is persistent. Maybe it should be semi-protected? 7&amp;6=thirteen (talk) 19:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC) Stan

Archive search box
Hi, I am using the advert-box on my talk page, and the search function doesn't work... Neither does the one on this page. It goes to a search for {search term} prefix:User_talk:-Zeus-/, but I get no results. Why? -Zeus-uc 22:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Incomplete reversion
You incompletely reverted the Guillotine article on February 11th revision history when you failed to notice a prior vandalism that had occurred 35 minutes earlier. Hu (talk) 00:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

ClueBot II
Hey I started fixing a broken ref in a few articles then realised a bot should do it. I noticed that ClueBot II created the problem in question. See the list here: I've just been adding a References section with a reflist template to each article. It really would make sense for the bot to clean up rather than a person. Cheers. SeanMack (talk) 05:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Asteroid_stubs
 * Just wondering can I help? Or is it all "hard sums"? SeanMack (talk) 09:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism to image description pages
I don't know if this has already been reported and corrected because it's about two weeks old, but here the bot probably should have put a colon before the page name to link to the page but not display the image. WODUP (talk) 00:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Asteroids
Is this the bot making all those asteroids stubs? Because if it is, it had better make an effort to avoid me in small and dark alleys. Debresser (talk) 22:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Reporting a false positive
I'd like to report a false positive on the page you have for doing that, but I can't, since it's been protected. I was removing a bunch of unsourced text copied from Encyclopedia Brittanica from a disambiguation page (Arakan), and, apparently, it looked like vandalism. The revert ID is 591149. Thanks. 128.151.91.131 (talk) 05:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

We really need to put a notice up stating that false positive reporting is down. --Clark89 (talk) 11:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

ClueBot I stopped
Has stopped reverting on the 21st. --Clark89 (talk) 11:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Tom Renney
Where are the obscenities? WHERE ARE THE OBSCENITIES? I simply added another external link and smoothed out a rough edge! The term "Broadway Blueshirts" is a commonly used nickname for the New York Rangers. Sometimes it's shortened to just "Blueshirts." WHERE ARE THE OBSCENITIES?...and who made you the God of Wikipedia anyways?The Ink Daddy! (talk) 21:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

False positive report, provided link didn't function
Edit ID 600369 was a false positive. Specifically, the change made here. The server for reporting cluebot malfunctions appears to be malfunctioning. Ray (talk) 02:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Warning about vandalism to files
I think that in this warning the log entry should feature a link instead of transcluding the image. Since the first link to the file page works properly, I assume that the bot can make the distinction between the File namespace and the rest (with regards to links). Or is there a known problem regarding the quoting of log entries? Waltham, The Duke of 15:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Question
Should ClueBot be reverting X1 (test templates), similar to the sandbox?  Spencer T♦C 22:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Casio
I removed racist content that is very Anti Arabic it is useless informataion and racist and should be removed. I will remove it —Preceding unsigned comment added by AKM732 (talk • contribs) 22:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Cluebot III offline?
Hi is cluebot 3 offline? It hasn't edited since the 21st of February. --DFS454 (talk) 15:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

List of populist parties
I come here to warn you that the List of populist parties articles is being argued for discussion, so I come here to request you to argue for its mantainace and development at here. Lususromulus (talk) 19:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Um, no
I did not vandalize Dignity, I did the community a favor by getting rid of that ghastly, unprofessional essay you call Dignity. 66.41.89.45 (talk) 22:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

New month header
Why did ClueBot add a new month header here ? I can understand a decision to warn only at level 1, given that 16 days had elapsed since the previous warning, but why repeat the "February 2009" heading? Philip Trueman (talk) 12:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I have been seeing a lot of this lately. As an example, here it created two extra February headers.  --Kralizec! (talk) 20:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it also did it to here as well. The user should have been final warned by now, I 3-leveled warned him then the bot made it level 1, I guess the next one will be final. Xenmorpha (talk) 15:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

No response to false positives
Trying to report false positive (610278) but the service is unavailable (cannot even ping the address 24.40.131.153). Looking at the false positives page I do not appear to be alone in this. I thought the whole point of Wikipedia was to encourange constructive editing. If all my changes are immediatedly deleted by a bot and I am unable to defend them, why bother?! 84.144.99.21 (talk) 14:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Bug report: image insertion
In this warning, ClueBot appears to have inserted the 610 × 739 pixel image into the warning, rather than just linking to the image's file name. --Kralizec! (talk) 15:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC)