User talk:ClueBot Commons/Archives/2012/October

Is Cluebot ready for Pending Changes?
I wanted to make sure Cluebot's masters are aware that WP:Pending changes protection is coming back this December. Does anybody know if Cluebot is able to make reverts on pending changes protected articles? ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:38, 30 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The bot has reviewer rights, so its edits should be OK. → Σ  σ  ς . 23:30, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If IP1 edits Pending Changes protected article, but does not trigger reversion, and then IP2 edits the same article with obvious vandalism triggering a cluebot revert, what is the result for the first edit in terms of PC? Monty  845  00:00, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Ooh, that's a very good question that could have a messy answer. ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:06, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

suggestion for ClueBot NG: a list of unreverted suspicious edits
Because ClueBot NG does not revert a page twice in a row, a lot of vandalism will undoubtedly go unnoticed at first. Vandalism missed by ClueBot NG will eventually be caught by human editors, but this could take some time, especially during off-peak hours. So I have a suggestion: ClueBot NG should maintain a list of edits that satisfy the ANN score but are not reverted. A good location for the page would be something like User:ClueBot NG/possible vandalism. Such a list could be updated, say, every 15 minutes. Edits that are not reverted within a certain time (say, 24 hours) would be considered false positives and removed from the list. What do people think? --Ixfd64 (talk) 17:39, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * We sort of do this by feeding high scoring but not reverted edits into Stiki as a queue. Those are then dealt with by humans. While it would be nice to have a better human interface with report/review integration we have to be careful not to 'skew' the dataset with bad data. - Damian Zaremba (talk • contribs) 17:44, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * This is true. It would be cool if ClueBot got some feedback from STiki though. ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:08, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Please could you block this user. They are making damaging and offensive comments about a mother and child
Please can you block user Lambourgenie they have been making damaging and offensive remarks on Ian Watkins (Lostprophets) page about his girlfriend and child. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Desirrred (talk • contribs) 20:32, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * This is the wrong forum. If you want them blocked you should probably file a report at either WP:AIV or WP:ANI. The user's contributions don't look like blatant vandalism, so it's unlikely you're going to get them blocked without better evidence. (They did violate the policy on livings persons however, so you could also try WP:BLP/N.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:40, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Please set up auto-archiving of this talk page that has extant manual archives
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:File_copyright_tags could use installation of an archival bot. It has manually archived pages; the archiver has retired. Could someone with familiarity setting up auto-archiving of a talk page that has extant manual archives please set it up for auto-archival? I've no idea how to set it up so that, e.g. archive search is available from the main page and works smoothly over the old and new archives. (This is an edit to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ClueBot_III, which redirects to this page, for ClueBot Commons.)--Elvey (talk) 23:59, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Broken again, look in my edit history, Ashoka
n/a — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.10.52.163 (talk) 20:58, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Please explain the mass removal of content better. If your edits are constructive, please refer to here. I would expect it to revert mass-removal of content by an unregistered editor. Anyway, 2 human editors have reverted the blanking as would I. Why'd you blank it? Matthew Thompson  talk to me bro! 06:20, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

You are fast!
I just got the notification of the change and by the time I got to it, you had already reverted the vandalism. That's fast! Mugginsx (talk) 20:06, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

archiving inactive?
Is not working?? Is it malfunctioning? Comments on my talk page is archived by Cluebot III, it currently isn't archiving. There a thread is supposed to go only 24 hours without a reply; currently some comments are 3-4 days old. What is going on? Mr T (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 07:58, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Should be working again shortly. - Damian Zaremba (talk • contribs) 10:07, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, it indeed is inactive? Days?? Come on! Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 15:25, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Why a level 1 warning after a level 4?
What is the point of issuing a level 1 warning as the bot did in when only a few days beforehand the user had been given a level 4 warning? I could vaguely understand it if it was an IP editor and you weren't sure that it was the same person, but for a registered editor I see no justification for going back to level 1 immediately after level 4. - David Biddulph (talk) 14:13, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Channel Line-Up Removal
Hello!!

Why you removed the current channel line-up especially in the Philippines. If fact this issue already case close last year and discussed already in Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not. However, there is no rule that channel line-up removing state there neither an administrator nor IP user due to unknown user itself to added the provision is not necessity at all. Or you just imagine for your interest to hacked the article that what you are doing just like George Ho removing like Direct TV in US but also in Philippine Cable and Satellite article. Is this a news blackout,, Hello, Please stop this or you will block for editing. Mind your own article and please do not owed wikipedia this is a free country. many of IT user will protest you for your wrong doing as well as attitude of racism  Puppyph 01:07, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Revision to ClueBot Commons
This IP#1 "Sand Monkeys" post lead to Asian soccer body blames Wikipedia for slur of UAE team. Right after IP#1 post, another IP (IP#2 posted). Then, ClueBot undid IP#2's post, but not the Sand Monkeys post. Sand Monkey is a racial discriminatory slang term used to describe a Middle Eastern individual. Can you revise Clue Bot to revert/flag Sand Monkey in article that fall under child categories within Category:Middle East. Thanks. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:59, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Why am I wrong?
Why am I wrong? I learning English so maybe not good sentence, but I put smart words into article. Prease exprain what I doing wrong. Ho Pimpington (talk) 20:06, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi from Clemson
Hi. I am a student at Clemson University and my english class is doing a project on Wikipedia. I choose the article on the Hawk to edit. It would be a big help if you had any suggestions on my work in my sandbox. User:Andi7855 Andi7855 (talk) 12:44, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Pure vandalisms on on user pages
Is it possible to make cluebot NG revert blatant vandalisms on user pages and user talks? Like this and this. (Original query (permalink) ). Thank you. ···V ani s che nu「m/Talk」 19:22, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

sory
sory my brother keeps posinus frogs and i just siad i think there cute i wont change pages again — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.226.102.0 (talk) 01:27, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Really? I suggest that you read this--5 albert square (talk) 01:33, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Duplicated vandalism warning headers
Vandalism warnings have a month name header added. However Cluebot usually creates a new header for each warning. Only if vandalism repeats on the same day does Cluebot recognise this and suppress the new header. Can we please have this behaviour extended to vandalism any time during the same month? (calendar or elapsed days). Otherwise the headers get duplicated and Cluebot's warning escalation counter keeps getting reset. We have lots of vandals who ought to be blocked, but blocks are refused for "insufficient warning" as instead of a v4, they've received a string of v1s. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:19, 19 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I have raised hell over this before and got nowhere, but then I started to think about. If the vandal is repeatedly engaging in vandalism that trips Cluebot reverts, then there is no problem anyway. The vandalism is instantly reverted without any human effort. Then if the same vandal does happen to make an unconstructive edit that requires my time to revert it, I would look at the talk page and the string of recent level 1 Cluebot warnings and issue a level 4 anyway. Regardless, once a vandal is reported, I would assume no admin would look at a long string of almost daily level 1 Cluebot warnings and not issue the block based on "insufficient warning". Has this actually happedened? I would like to see a link to an example. -- Racer X11 Talk to me Stalk me  19:40, 22 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I should add that I have in fact seen vandals escape blocks due to this techicality, but not recently. My argument in the past has been, in theory, a vandal could use the following procedure to avoid blocks:


 * They could happily vandalize pages in any way until they reach warning level 4. Wait a couple days and make an edit that is so blatant that it is sure to trip a Cluebot revert. This will reset their warning level at 1. Continue freely vandalizing until they reach level 4 again, wait a couple days and repeat.


 * I don't think they would get very far exploiting the loophole in this way, but I'm sure it could and does happen in similar and isolated cases. -- Racer X11 Talk to me Stalk me  19:59, 22 October 2012 (UTC)