User talk:ClueBot Commons/Archives/2017/December

Proposed change to standard wording

 * Moved from User talk:Cobi/Archives/2017/November

I am an OTRS agent, and I handled a query from someone whose edit was reverted by Cluebot.

Before I go on, I will share that I have looked at many hundreds of reversions, and I am quite impressed with the accuracy. Some are simple, but I have seen some reversions which were appropriate, but not immediately obvious to me. The process of studying false positives has clearly paid off.

In this specific case, it is my opinion that the edit was good faith, although I understand why it was reverted. I can share the details is you wish, but I'm not sure it will help with the false positive analysis. I'm writing for a different reason.

While most of the reversions are vandalism, I'm sure you realize there are occasional false positives, which is why your standard language indicates how to report a false positive as well as using the term “possible vandalism” rather than “vandalism”.

I trust you also know that queries sent to OTRS are treated as confidential, so I cannot share more information without getting explicit permission.

The person who wrote did share some advice, and I think it is advice worth considering.

Rather than identifying the edit as “possible vandalism”, identify it as: ++++++“Edit has been removed by Bot due to noncompliance with Wikipedia guidelines.”++++++

That would reduce the reaction of the small number of people who ar caught in a false positive.

Actually, I would amend the advice to: ++++++“Edit has been removed by Bot due to possible noncompliance with Wikipedia guidelines.”++++++

I do think this advice is worth taking seriously. I will be sharing a link to this discussion with the people who wrote to OTRS, and will urge them to contribute to the discussion.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  21:04, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Fix ping -- S Philbrick (Talk)  21:05, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi {ping|Sphilbrick}, what I great idea, I will see what I can do -  Rich T&#124;C&#124;E-Mail 21:09, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That was quick! FYI - I will have limited access to internet until tomorrow morning at the airport - maybe.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  21:13, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

The edits are undone rather than removed, though. And other than the edit summary, the rest of the warning are templates on-wiki that can be edited. See these:

I certainly do not object to rewording the edit summary, but be advised that the edit summary is limited in the size and in many cases we are already bumping up against that. For example: is already too long. Perhaps a better wording would be one of these: But "Edit by has been removed by Bot due to possible noncompliance with Wikipedia guidelines. Report False Positive?  Thanks, ClueBot NG.   (Bot)" is long and loses the obvious fact that the edit was a revert, and is longer than any of the other ones, doesn't mention the user of the version that was reverted to, and is misleading in that the edit was not removed, just reverted. -- Cobi(t&#124;c&#124;b) 22:03, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * "Reverting possible vandalism by 2607:FEA8:BE60:6A0:79AB:4602:EF72:70BD to version by 2607:FEA8:5AE0:291:5499:A711:9F4B:AF3F. Report False Positive? Thanks, ClueBot NG. (3204772) (Bot)"
 * "Reverting edit by to version by . Report False Positive?  Thanks, ClueBot NG.  (Bot)"
 * "Reverting possibly non-compliant edit by to version by . Report False Positive?  Thanks, ClueBot NG.  (Bot)"
 * "Reverting contentious edit by to version by . Report False Positive?  Thanks, ClueBot NG.  (Bot)"
 * "Reverting dubious edit by to version by . Report False Positive?  Thanks, ClueBot NG.  (Bot)"
 * "Reverting possibly non-constructive edit by to version by . Report False Positive?  Thanks, ClueBot NG.  (Bot)"
 * "Reverting possibly disruptive edit by to version by . Report False Positive?  Thanks, ClueBot NG.  (Bot)"
 * "Undoing edit by to version by . Report False Positive?  Thanks, ClueBot NG.  (Bot)"
 * I have changed it (for now) to 'Edit by  user  has been reverted by ClueBot NG due to possible noncompliance with Wikipedia guidelines. Report False Positive? (revid) (Bot)'. However I'm more then happy to either revert (heh) it or change it again :) -  Rich T&#124;C&#124;E-Mail 22:09, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That's too long. And really needs wider consensus since many tools key off of the regex "/^revert/i" -- Cobi(t&#124;c&#124;b) 22:14, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * For example: this edit summary -- Cobi(t&#124;c&#124;b) 22:27, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Alright, I reverted it -  Rich T&#124;C&#124;E-Mail 22:30, 28 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Try something like this: "Reverting possible vandalism by 86.129.146.101 to version by Iggy the Swan. Report False Positive? Thanks, ClueBot NG (3204809) (Bot)", as the user contribution page has the wiki link contains a large amount of characters - an IPv6 vandal would have a maximum of 32+7+5+22=66 characters (32 being the maximum amount of digits an IPv6 address holds, 7 for the seperators, 5 for the wikilink brackets & piped link character and 22 for the "Special:Contributions/" part. The Report False Positive link has been shortened to abbreviate the first letters of the three words and the final link has been shortened from "Wikipedia" to WP for abbreviation also. Iggy (talk) 22:51, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Err Iggy... WP:RFP is Request For (Page) Protection... I'm not sure that's where we want to send people ;) -  Rich T&#124;C&#124;E-Mail 22:55, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * As well as that error (I apologise for that), the Special:Contributions link I have done also goes to the wrong place. The WP:CBFP part is better, the first link try using "Special:Contribs" instead - I have noticed that also goes to the user contributions page. Third link, I might have said WP:CBNG, I shall check this on one of the tools and see if that was already in place... Iggy (talk) 23:06, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * On this, the abbreviations on the last two piped links I have listed are already on there before modification. I have misjudged the redirects the small popups show when hovering over the links. Iggy (talk) 23:13, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Fixing the IRC relay?
WP:STiki emails me a couple of times a day with status reports on the various queues. Of course, the CBNG one has been inactive for some time due to do issues with CBNGRelay. I was surprised to see today that some 114k edits were processed from the CBNG IRC feed, seemingly across a couple of hours time. I'm hopeful this is indicative of testing that might bring the CBNG IRC feed back online -- my STiki/metadata model is quite outdated -- and I see this reflected as a decline in vandalism hit-rates for STiki users relative to the norm when the CBNG queue was default. Fingers crossed! West.andrew.g (talk) 03:29, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That's a bit odd... unless something happened on the IRC. The last one to do anything on the labs server was me and all I did was shutdown the bot, made a few text changes and relaunched it... -  Rich T&#124;C&#124;E-Mail
 * Yeah... my counters continue to see sporadic IRC messages received over the last couple days in the room. I can't recall what exactly my system counts: it could just be messages in the room expecting CBNGRelay would be the only one talking (i.e., something else is in there talking now), but I thought it corresponded to messages received and successfully parsed/ingested as edit scores. If I find the time, I'll investigate a bit. Thanks, West.andrew.g (talk) 16:39, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Presuming you are using the ClueNet IRC channel... the Relay is fine on there and there is nobody else talking in there - - Rich T&#124;C&#124;E-Mail 18:09, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Editing help
What do you mean vandalism? What's that? I was just looking for editing help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.124.141 (talk) 03:16, 3 December 2017 (UTC)


 * If you need help, we have a lot of resources available to help you. If you're new to Wikipedia, see our Introduction, and you can also ask for help at the Teahouse. — k6ka  🍁 ( Talk ·  Contributions ) 13:03, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Report a false negative?
Hello Cluebot NG. I am a big fan of your work. I read through your user page and FAQ, and didn't see this. Sorry if I missed it. Is there a way to report a false negative? That is, are you looking for examples of vandalism that you missed? I just found two small edits at File:Canada Drives company logo.jpg that replaced good links with spam links. Not sure if you want to add this to your learning dataset. Hope it helps. RudolfRed (talk) 04:58, 3 December 2017 (UTC)


 * The bot does not check and revert edits outside of the main namespace. The page you linked is in the file namespace, which the bot specifically ignores. — k6ka  🍁 ( Talk ·  Contributions ) 13:04, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Missed a few
Pretty much all of this users contribs are bunk, ClueBot missed 'em all. Q T C 05:41, 5 December 2017 (UTC)


 * ClueBot NG doesn't catch all instances of vandalism, only most. It was not designed to replace human vandal fighters, but to aid and supplement them. There's no need to create a thread here over vandalism the bot didn't catch; the best thing you can do is to just revert it (Like I do). — k6ka  🍁 ( Talk  ·  Contributions ) 14:39, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You'll see that four of the seven edits were flagged by ORES as "needing review", and two were tagged by an edit filter as possible vandalism. There are multiple defences Noyster (talk),  16:03, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

ClueBot III archiving sections for Dec to month of Nov
The ClueBot III is archiving sections for Dec to the month of Nov (here is one such example). - Offnfopt (talk) 18:23, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That's a bug. I need to fix that, and will take a look at it in more detail when I have some time perhaps this weekend.  In the meantime, the bot is using the timestamp of the oldest thread that would be naturally archived (now - 720 hours, according to the config on that page), which is usually fine, but breaks for expedited archivals.  After we get 720 hours into December, it will be right.  -- Cobi(t&#124;c&#124;b) 18:43, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok thanks for the information and quick reply, much appreciated. - Offnfopt (talk) 18:48, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Editing
Should I edit or add details on pages? 2601:205:C100:627F:197:6998:824:7826 (talk) 14:30, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

NG warning levels
After reverting this edit, I gave the IP a uw-joke1. A few minutes later, Cluebot NG reverted this edit and gave the IP a level-1 warning. Is it intentional that the bot gives a level-1 warning when the page already has another one (and a very recent one, at that), or is this an error? Nyttend (talk) 20:11, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is a bug, sort of. The bot expects the timestamp of the warning to be on the same line as the  line.  This is to guarantee that it reads the right timestamp for the warning time.  I could update it to find the next timestamp, but that is less likely to be the right one.  -- Cobi(t&#124;c&#124;b) 01:15, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Strange behaviour from ClueBot III building indices
Cluebot III is putting some very unexpected content at User:ClueBot III/Indices/Talk:Elsevier (and consequently in the archive box at Talk:Elsevier). Instead of archives of the Elsevier talk page, it is linking to unrelated mainspace Wikipedia articles sorted alphabetically. --Joshua Issac (talk) 11:10, 28 December 2017 (UTC)