User talk:ClueBot Commons/Archives/2011/March

Jimmy Bennett
Please do not vandalize articles, as you did to Jimmy Bennett. All reliable sources state that he was born in 1996, not 1997. Show reliable sources for your edits next time, or experiment with the sandbox. Mallen22 (talk) 02:22, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The bot did not ever say that he was born in 1996 ... -- Cobi(t&#124;c&#124;b) 02:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think it can really be classified as "vandalism" for a bot to revert to a revision with the wrong birthdate... ☻☻☻Sithman VIII !!☻☻☻ 05:52, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Ha, it's funny because people are warning and discussing the anti-vandal robot's vandalism. -- SnoFox(t&#124;c) 05:54, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The robot made no vandalism at all. This is the edit the bot made!  No change of date of birth, no idea where Mallen22 got that idea from.  Anyway Mallen22, when ClueBot does make edits it is impossible for the bot to quote references, all it ever does is revert, it never actually adds to the articles.--5 albert square (talk) 23:22, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Nuvola apps important.svg|25px]] Excuse me, but the edit history clearly states that you vandalized the Jimmy Bennett page. Am I talking to a person? Stop referring to yourself as "Robot." It is classified as slang (Slang) and is not appropriate for talk pages. You have also violated No Personal Attacks (No Personal Attacks) when I am trying to resolve your careless error. You commit vandalism to an article. Accept that and don't take it out on me. I am doing my duty as a Wikipedian, and if you do not then you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Mallen22 (talk) 02:03, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The edit history clearly shows that the bot reverted an edit that was vandalise as it is designed to do. How is "Robot" classified as slang, the bot is an automated script which checks edits for vandalism and reverted them accordingly - this clearly falls under the title of 'Robot'. There have been no person attacks against you only people pointing out that the revision by ClueBot was valid. DamianZaremba (talk • contribs) 02:11, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * ClueBot has become self-aware. Cluebot must be destroyed.  Remingtonhill1 (talk) 05:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

You are indeed talking to a person, but in case you haven't noticed, you're talking to multiple people. The editor in question is a robot and will not, nor cannot respond to you. The bot is simply doing as it's programmed and authorized by the BRFA to do, and according to the edit picked out by 5 albert square, it's doing well. Nobody has attacked you personally, either. If there was a false positive we missed, please report it here and set your username in the name field and I'll see to the it that the edit is dealt with personally. Otherwise, please note that "Bot" is shorthand for "robot", and on the Internet is an automated script, which ClueBot NG is indeed such. -- SnoFox(t&#124;c) 05:31, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * CHECK the edit history for yourself. Here are the SIMPLE Instructions. Physically move your cursor to the edit history of Jimmy Bennett. Now scroll down to where the name of a user used through the "Bot" which is slang is located. I will not let this go until the vandalizer realizes their mistake. Mallen22 (talk) 19:14, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I am lost at your point, this account IS A BOT hence the username has the word BOT in it. It is NOT slang. Also please DO NOT YELL. Here are the last few edits by the bot http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jimmy_Bennett&diff=next&oldid=412959760, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jimmy_Bennett&diff=prev&oldid=412185727, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jimmy_Bennett&diff=next&oldid=405440951 which all as far as I can tell are valid reverts. The edits are out of context and not productive. If you don't agree then please report a false positive as instructed by the revert message and one of us will review it and if needed include it in the dataset that is used to train the bot. Please do not be so rude otherwise we might just stop trying to help you. DamianZaremba (talk • contribs) 19:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll add in my 2 cents... and "will not let this go until the *snip*[user above] realizes their mistake". May I suggest you read up on how a wikipedia bot works... "Now scroll down to where the name of a user used through the "Bot" which is slang is located." - are you inciting that a wikipedian used the ClueBot NG name to vandalise? Well, here's a fact... NOBODY CAN! Now...
 * [[Image:Nuvola apps important.svg|25px]] Please leave this page before you are warned and blocked for harrassment. - Rich (MTCD) Talk Page 19:25, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Every edit on Jimmy Bennett from ClueBot NG since it was first started has been a correct revert. Thank you for making me go through all of them. If you still believe I missed something, please make sure it was indeed the user ClueBot NG making the revert, and paste the exact URL here, or simply report the false positive here, otherwise make note that ClueBot NG is NOT a person, and please cease pointless accusations against the robot. -- SnoFox(t&#124;c) 19:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Also Mallen22 can I just point out that nowhere in the history of the article does it say that the robot vandalised the article. ClueBot's edit summaries always say "reverting possible vandalism", in other words, removing possible vandalism. In this case the robot definitely removed vandalism because there's no way that the edit could be constructive to the article.  Also, nobody has attacked you, you have a number of editors that have replied and all we have tried to do is explain to you why the robot made the revert and explain how robotic editing works.--5 albert square (talk) 20:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay. I'm sorry. I now understand that the "bot" does work and was actually fixing the vandalism. It's amazing that Wikipedia can use robots to do edit work. Mallen22 (talk) 03:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * [squeeeezing in before it's all gone] Guys, just wanted to thank you all for making my day! Yes, you spent some time clearing up your misunderstanding... but: First, it was just a hilarious read... then I was impressed by some of you guys' patience... and at the end, I'm even more impressed by Mallen22's final reaction (which after all is all but ordinary on the internet... unfortunately). So... thanks a bunch!! --Ibn Battuta (talk) 06:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

no disrespect
but im acctualy tring to be responsive and constuctive--zed127 high school student 18:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zed127 (talk • contribs)

plus it was my txt i was fixing--zed127 high school student 18:23, 1 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zed127 (talk • contribs)

March 2011
I noticed the message you recently left to a newcomer. Please remember: do not bite the newcomers. If you see someone make a common mistake, try to politely point out what they did wrong and how to correct it. Thank you. ''Happy March fools! :-)'' PaoloNapolitano (talk) 19:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This account is a bot - it uses the standard templates for vandalism and only those templates. DamianZaremba (talk • contribs) 20:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Mistake?

 * Why did Clue Bot give another general note warning on this user's talk page? Baseball   Watcher  01:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * To me, it looks like ClueBot NG does not support the detection of Huggle warning templates... O.o; Interesting. I'm wondering how this hasn't been reported earlier? -- SnoFox(t&#124;c) 01:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * This revert by ClueBot resulted in this Help Desk discussion, where Mjroots noted that New Musical Express is a RS. Please follow up at the Help Desk. Thanks -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:59, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

ClueBot review interface access
Hi Cobi, I filed a request for acces to the review interface here. I was just wondering if this is an active thing or not? Never really got into RCPing because it felt like a very tedious task, but I was impressed by some of the bot's edits and look forward to improving the database. Could you have a look at it and give me an update? Thanks, Pim Rijkee (talk) 19:22, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Same here, I filed a request a while ago. --- c y m r u . l a s s  (talk me, stalk me) 04:42, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, let me speak with Cobi. He disappeared a couple days ago with part of his network. He may be busy with life -- unfortunately he has one. :P -- SnoFox(t&#124;c) 04:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * O.o A Wikipedian.... with a life... ?!?!?! When did this happen? The gods must be crazy! :P --- c y m r u . l a s s  (talk me, stalk me) 07:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Let me remind everyone that Wikipedia is not a place for speculation. This concept of "life" that Cobi has supposedly experienced is an unsourced claim. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 21:40, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * My apologies, H3llkn0wz -- I sometimes forget I am writing on Wikipedia! :P Anyway, this just in: Cobi is alive! He checks the signups manually every week or two, to prevent vandals. At this moment in time, if you have a pending review interface signup from before February 21st, poke me or Cobi, otherwise be patient, you'll be gotten to. -- SnoFox(t&#124;c) 01:49, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * [poke] I have a pending review interface sign up and I'm too lazy to go find your talk page ;) --- c y m r u . l a s s  (talk me, stalk me) 02:14, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Cymru.lass: Is the pending signup from before February 21st, if you remember? -- SnoFox(t&#124;c) 07:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Uhmmm... I'm not sure. I think it might have been. Then again, I can't even remember what I had for brekkie this morning, so I wouldn't trust my memory :P --- c y m r u . l a s s  (talk me, stalk me) 01:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems your request was submitted February 23rd, so I'll let Cobi handle it when he does the rest. I don't want to cause him problems by randomly adding users from his queue. -- SnoFox(t&#124;c) 01:16, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Okie doke! Thanks :) I knew it was from somewhere in that time frame but I wasn't entirely sure. Thanks again! --- c y m r u . l a s s  (talk me, stalk me) 01:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

What clues does this clueless bot detect
I dont want to sound paranoid, but your "clue" bot seems to be cover for some nasty imperialist censor. Any time a western leaders are exposed, the clue-bot yells "vandalism". It is either poorly designed, or designed a bit to well (i.e. its a cover). In any case, it should be turned off, as it attacks people for the balance this bot does not seem to want (instead, it pushes someones POV, very suspiciously). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miszaq (talk • contribs) 12:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The way the bot is designed actually makes it quite hard to introduce bias for a specific subject. If you think a revert is incorrect the use the report interface to flag it so we can train the bot. Without the article you are talking about I can't do it for you. DamianZaremba (talk • contribs) 13:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

???
what was this?-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 13:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Why you still don't archive my edits? Please fix this and put them in the appropriate archive page. Thank you.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 14:30, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Youre good at vandalism
You make me upset because there is NO vandalism I can find but very few. Take a wikibreak maybe. --rtivey (talk) 15:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

ANI notices
How many ClueBot notices does it take before ClueBot notifies the WP:ANI folks see: User talk:80.88.112.11 ? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 15:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Four, I believe, and within a 24 hour period. The bot also tries to detect other user's warnings and use that to increase their warning level. The fifth will send a notice to WP:ANI. (I can verify this later) -- SnoFox(t&#124;c) 16:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, found this User:ClueBot. The User talk:80.88.112.11 account example, seems to be a slow unrelenting IP vandal. Seems like an over all user trigger might be in order with some reasonable threshold for admin counseling. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 16:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Help
I accidentally reported a false positive, but i was trying to report that you had correctly identified vandalism. What do i do about this? ryan21c — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan21c (talk • contribs) 02:23, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * We review all FP reports before they go to be scored and added to the dataset so when we come across your report and it looks like a valid revert we will just skip adding it to the review db. DamianZaremba (talk • contribs) 15:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Detecting vandalism from Huggle and Igloo users
I was wondering: I have a dataset-review account for ClueBot NG. But there are already a group of dedicated people who review vandalism: other vandal-fighters. ClueBot NG obviously has to monitor the RC feed, so why not have it look at the edits done with automated anti-vandalism tools like Huggle and Igloo? If that's too noisy, may I suggest this kind of procedure instead:

For each incoming change, C:


 * 1) If C has a edit summary that suggests it has come from Huggle (HG) or Igloo (GLOO), check to see if the user is either on the ClueBot NG dataset review membership list or on a list of trusted anti-vandal fighters.
 * 2) If the reverting editor is not on the ClueBot NG dataset review membership list or on a list of trusted anti-vandal fighters, call the API to find out if he/she is an admin or has been given Rollback permissions. If either or both is true, add them to the list of trusted anti-vandal fighters.
 * 3) If the editor is trusted, locate the change they are reverting and add it to ClueBot NG's dataset marked as vandalism.

Just to make sure that ClueBot NG doesn't get stuffed up with stale data, you might want to make sure the trusted anti-vandal fighter list expires. Once someone gets added to it, it checks to see if they are still an admin or rollbacker in six months time.

The nice thing with this approach if implemented is that it would mean just by getting rollback and Huggling/Iglooing, experienced users wouldn't just be fighting vandalism but actually building up the effectiveness of ClueBot NG. Unlike with reviewing datasets, there is both an immediate payoff (a vandal that ClueBot NG might have missed gets reverted/warned/blocked) and long-term benefit (it builds up ClueBot NG's dataset). Of course, I know nothing about ClueBot NG's internals (although the performance of it looks absolutely bonkers-mad fast) so I'm not sure if it would be possible to add this functionality. You'd obviously have to have a separate thread going: fixing vandalism is a far higher priority task than running the machine learning algorithm over vandalism that other people have reverted. Anyway, keep up the great work keeping enWP free of vandalism! —Tom Morris (talk) 21:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I think this is a potentially good idea, with a few modifications. I don't think the reverts should be automatically added to ClueBot's dataset just because they are rollbackers, because rollbackers do make mistakes. Also, even though they do imply trust, rollbacker rights don't imply as much trust as admin rights do. For example, I was given rollbacker rights after only a month of editing.


 * Additionally, people using Huggle and Igloo do make mistakes, as do admins, so maybe instead of automatically adding the edits to the dataset as vandalism, they could be added to a separate "review" list.


 * Twinkle could be incorporated into this by looking for the words "reverted" and "TW" in the edit summary (which will exclude things like adding messages to talkpages or nominating for deletion with Twinkle).


 * A word of caution, not all edits that are reverted with anti-vandalism tools are things that should be caught by ClueBot. For example, say User A creates an article and User B nominates it for speedy deletion. User A promptly removes the tag, and User C, using an anti-vandalism tool, reverts that edit because removal of the tag by a page's author is not allowed. Adding this to the dataset might make think ClueBot think that any removal of a CSD template (not just by the author) is bad. Also, sometimes users log out and then remove the templates from pages they created, and if User A did that in the scenario above, and User C reverted that, then that would further confuse ClueBot.


 * I like the idea of having a whitelist of trusted vandalism fighters, though. Adding human reverts to a list for review is a good idea and could potentially improve ClueBot's performance greatly :) --- c y m r u . l a s s  (talk me, stalk me) 20:54, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Tracking warning levels
How does ClueBot NG work out what warning level to use? I'm thinking of this case; the bot seems to have looked at the talk page, not its history. That example illustrates the difficulties, with different patterns of edit summaries, but how about looking back through the history for, say, the most recent warning issued by a rollbacker or above? Philip Trueman (talk) 16:41, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure, but looking at that it would appear that the IP blanked their own talk page. I'm guessing that had something to do with CBNG going back to the level one warning.  Either way because of the amount and nature of the vandalism, I've now blocked the IP for 48 hours.--5 albert square (talk) 17:02, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Caillou epsodes
I was thinking that maybe we can do a list of episodes for the Treehouse/Teletoon/PBS Kids Sprout series Caillou. Caillou has about 100 episodes or more so we should need a episode list page for it. Brandon J. Marcellus (talk) 21:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Duplicate headers; FAQ?
I see much mention of this issue in the history but no replies. If it's just too hard to avoid duplicating headers and that's already been said so many times over the years, I (and I'm sure many others who find these duplications a major interference with handling vandalism mano a mano) would appreciate knowing that. Perhaps an FAQ page? Thanks, Joja  lozzo  03:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Please sir, could I have just a crumb of attention? I think the FAQ idea has merit and the dup header issue troubles many users. If we can't get a response here, perhaps in an FAQ page? Joja lozzo  01:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I thought I had responded. I must've been on my laptop and it got shut down before I posted. I have only seen the duplicate headers error very rarely, and I am unsure of the bug's cause myself. Perhaps Cobi can shed some light on the subject. However, I do think I can cobble together some sort of "Known Bugs" page, although I don't know if it would be of any use. -- SnoFox(t&#124;c) 01:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding. Would it help if I reported each time I see this. I probably see it two or three times a week. I suspect I could go now and find several examples from the bot's contributions in the last day. Joja  lozzo  14:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

After looking through the recent contributions for a couple of minutes it looks like the problem occurs whenever there is the extra line that Twinkle drops in, "If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make any unconstructive edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant warnings." I suspect this is interferes with the parsing logic so the bot doesn't locate the previous warnings. Joja lozzo  14:37, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you drop me a few diffs to where this happens? I'll check them after school and look at the bot's code to see if I can find it myself. -- SnoFox(t&#124;c) 16:30, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * It appears my theory is wrong. However, here are some examples from the last few hours:
 * Does not support my theory, bot duplicates header after a previous bot warning, no intervening TW message: User_talk:212.219.252.238#March_2011 diff
 * Contradicts my theory - bot posted a warning after the shared IP message without duplicating the header: User_talk:66.76.133.110#March_2011 diff
 * Does not support my theory, bot duplicates header with no TW msg: User_talk:209.174.191.59 diff
 * Supports my theory but is a month old: User_talk:205.202.243.11#February_2011 diff
 * Joja lozzo  17:23, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Some March 6 examples:
 * [User_talk:Gunnertony01]
 * [User_talk:Zakk117]
 * [User_talk:113.197.12.197]

Joja lozzo  19:05, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I stopped looking after the two most recent in the bot's contribs with multiple talk history. From a non-scientific sampling this problem appears extremely common. User_talk:184.99.252.95 User_talk:24.125.63.226 Please let me know whether these examples are helpful or not. Joja lozzo  01:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Not clueful
It was not very clueful by the bot to revert a single vandalism edit but not the one immediately before it: diff Nageh (talk) 12:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I second. It would be better to examine last contiguous edit sequences of the same user, i.e. difference between recent version and the last revision saved by some another user, and correspondingly revert these entirely. Not blindly immediate differences of last edit. This means: let oldid=somegood be a good version and diff=suspicious1&oldid=somegood a new edit. Suppose the bot checked it. Then, if we have a new edit of the same user, it might be diff=suspicious2&oldid=somegood to check, not diff=suspicious2&oldid=suspicious1. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:41, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * P.S. possibly there should be also some temporal threshold. I.e. an interval longer than, say, 12 hours, should be treated equivalently to change of user. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:53, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It already does revert any chain of edits by the same user. Same as rollback does.  -- Cobi(t&#124;c&#124;b) 19:55, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The previous vandalism edit was from a different IP. The point is that the bot missed that one when reverting the other vandalism edit (despite clear indications for vandalism). Yet another IP reverted only part of the first edit requiring manual revert to the clean version. Not something really bothering but something that could be improved. Nageh (talk) 20:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I should clarify... my assumption was that the bot missed the first vandalism due to time constraints, but now I'm thinking it just didn't detect it as vandalism. Well... never mind then (though I'm curious why a large section blanking edit with references removal and random text insertion was not detected by the bot). Nageh (talk) 07:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Please change or delete your edit on George III or else I will be forced to report you for innapropriate vandalism. I will give you until 7:00 P.M. on March 10th. - Knagy, 12:42 A.M, March 9, 2011


 * Eh? How is this vandalism?  You can see in that edit that an IP put in offensive language which the bot has removed.  That is not vandalism on the bot's part because the bot has removed it!  To let you understand, ClueBot is a bot not a human and therefore runs off a script, does not actually edit any pages, just reverts them if possible vandalism takes place.  I have looked back over all ClueBot's reversions on that page back to 15th February and all ClueBot's reversions are correct.--5 albert square (talk) 00:55, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I have just been warned over vandalism. I don't know why, because what I submitted has actually happened. I didn't vandalise anything, I added two sentences. I won't bother posting in future. 94.0.142.82 (talk) 11:42, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

You have just eliminated my correct statement on Theodor Herzl, this displays a highly bias opinion from your side as you obviously want Theodor Herzl to be shone on in good light and covering up his misdeeds. By the way if this is what you do with your life, deleting comments ony wikipedia, you have obviously not achieved much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.102.208.37 (talk) 15:52, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Multiple instances of needed references for naval mine.(71.65.70.44 (talk) 01:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC)) Please note this isn't vandalism. Perhaps someone better informed in naval warfare could have written this article? There several appropriate editors here at wikipedia at least on of which is employed at the Naval War College. Just trying to be helpful. Also no personal analysis, I'm not sure why he(or she) thought that. I shall endeavor to retrieve suitable references for this article - so many are missing!(71.65.70.44 (talk) 01:11, 11 March 2011 (UTC))

Revert to itself
I suggest allowing the bot to revert to itself for pages that are not in the "AngryOptin" and are not currently a featured article. That might help eliminate certain vandalism. mechamind 9  0  20:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Review Interface Dump
Hi again, CBNG team. I've noticed that the bot has been down for several days. I hope everything is okay on that front. I am writing to see if I can get a copy of data produced by the review interface -- so that I can use it to refine STiki's training. Just a simple "RID,{0,1}" CSV file would more than suffice. Thanks, West.andrew.g (talk) 19:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd also be interested in getting a copy of the CBNG source-code. Besides curiosity, it would be nice to get a look at the bot's warning logic, s.t. I can better interface my own tool. Thanks, West.andrew.g (talk) 21:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)