User talk:ClueBot Commons/Archives/2010/February

Could someone please look at my ClueBot III settings

at my talk page? I set this up but no archives are being created. My use of headerlevel=7 is intended to keep everything prior to a level 7 header from being archived. Jeh (talk) 01:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems that level 7 headers don't actually exist. What you have instead is a level 6 header with an equal sign placed at the beginning and end. Trimming one = from both sides and switching the headerlevel parameter to 6 should cause ClueBot III to start archiving your page. Reach Out to the Truth 15:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

7 was given as an example in the CB III page, I thought it was a way to have a marker that CB III would recognize without "using up" a real level. But I'll try it. Thanks! Jeh (talk) 18:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I tried looking at the bot's source code to see if "level 7" headings were handled in any special way, but unfortunately I couldn't figure it out. Reach Out to the Truth 18:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

How long does it usually take for CB III to start archiving? Jeh (talk) 20:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Why does Cluebot sometimes skip over revert IDs?

Here, for example, I've been wondering about that for a while. -99.255.188.158 (talk) 00:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

ClueBot keeps track of certain other instances of vandalism, even if it doesn't end up reverting. -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 18:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Improving ClueBot

Hi,

Cluebot is doing a wonderful job at cleaning Wikipedia. One of its restriction is not to revert the same guy, on the same article and on the same day. This is required for not involving Cluebot in war edit.

Unfortunately, many vandals attack the same page over and over again as soon as their edit is removed. I think that Cluebot could be used for reverting them as well, by pairing it with rollbackers.

Here is my idea :

Cluebot works as usual.

It finds vandalism matching this rule (same guy, same article, same day), so flags the edit in its list of "suspected vandalism", just as it does now.

Should that vandalism be removed by the use of the Rollback feature, Cluebot would take this as a confirm of the vandalism and would accept to revert that guy, on that article, for the next 4 hours should its edits be recognized as vandalism again.

Instead of removing the edit from its list of potentially missed vandalism, the article, guy and date would remains there and ClueBot would know who can be reverted despite the anti-"war edit" rule. After 4 hours, the "permission" for by-passing that rule would expire and ClueBot would remove the entry from its log.

The delay of 4 hours is arbitrary and in fact, could be reduced to 1 hour because in such cases, the guy would be flagged and kicked out very quickly.

By working that way, Cluebot would never be the only one to revert vandalism of a user before flagging the admins because at least the second revert will have to be from a Rollbacker. The privilege of by-passing the anti-war rule would be allowed by trusted users only (Admins or Rollbackers). It would be for short period of time. ClueBot would still analyse the edits by the guy and should he turns constructive or his vandalism should not be obvious enough, his edit would stay in place or will have to be reverted by others.

With such an improvement, ClueBot would become much more effective against shared IP. That would reduce the need to block these sensitive IPs, vandalism from them being reverted more easily by Cluebot.

Should you need more input about that for figuring out to do it, I will be pleased to participate.

Heracles31 (talk) 20:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Please stop User:110.174.19.59

Hi,

User:110.174.19.59 should be blocked for the four edits he/she made to Geranium. The last three were all done in one minute (just after ClueBot reverted the first). Here is the sequence of diffs:

• ClueBot's first reversion of User:110.174.19.59
• next (1/3) edit by User:110.174.19.59
• next (2/3) edit by User:110.174.19.59
• next (3/3) edit by User:110.174.19.59

All of these vandalisms have been reverted.

If you can't block, please advise. Please respond here and I'll put this page on my watchlist. Thanks Hamamelis (talk) 11:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism reports should be taken to WP:AIV. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 12:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take it up there. Hamamelis (talk) 14:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

ClueBot doesn't appear to be programmed to block users. Mainly, it reverts edits and moves, warns users, and when the warning limit is exceeded, the user is reported to an automatic alert list. mechamind90 03:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

User:inuit18

This User:inuit18 is valdalisme the article Jamal-al-Din Afghani, but not with his account but only with ip-address and talks bad and he is scolding in his own language and you didn't understand it. Ask it to User:Ketabtoon to translate it for you. look here [1] and here [2]. If he can't talk like a gentlemen, than he has no rights to talk bad and scolding, and hide his face by editing this post without his account (he did it also in the past, look and read my talk page User talk:Abasin). I think is not right and wikipedia most do something against it. If you (User:VirtualSteve) are the one who has blocked me 2 times. I will see what you are doing with this. I will see your justice and of wikipedia. May justice triumph.Abasin-اباسین (Tofaan-توفان) 16:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't like the idea of reporting a major change to a bot when I'm reverting a large amount of biased material. I'm not sure how helpful this bot is, when it has made more difficult the process of reverting. Also, how do I know who runs cluebot? If this is a service of Wikipedia it should be run by Wikipedia, you have no business reverting peoples edits with a bot.

Respectfully, Beakermeep (talk) 05:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Only MediaWiki maintenance scripts would be run by Wikipedia's sysadmins. There's rarely reason for them to run, so they don't. ClueBot's operator is Cobi. ClueBot is an approved bot and has as much business reverting as anyone else does. Sometimes there will be false positives, and when that happens you can revert ClueBot's edit. It shouldn't prevent you from reverting or editing content yourself, and if it does you can revert ClueBot's edit. And as long as you haven't actually done any vandalism no admin action will be taken. Reach Out to the Truth 05:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

Vandalism on Welfare. FYI. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.157.160.13 (talk) 16:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

ClueBot III is logged out

Hey Cobi, It seems that ClueBot II was logged out for a bit, see this edit as an example. Thanks, Tim1357 (talk) 00:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Still - [3] 128.174.251.49 rather active the last 2 days. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for one week now. trying to get in touch with cobi as well. _→AzaToth 00:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Unblocked now. _→AzaToth 00:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

That page is fake, images are fake!

Ok i've added "FAKE!!!!" to the page, because the images are fake. Badly edit, and ref.link not found —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.134.230.226 (talk) 09:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

For : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamborghini_Alar

And ClueBot revert my change :/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.134.230.226 (talk) 09:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi. If you think there is a problem with an article, you should discuss it on the Talk page of the article itself rather than here. -- Boing! said Zebedee 09:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Switch

please switch the article Wolter Monginsidi Airport to Haluoleo Airport because yesterday the vice minister of communications of the Republic Indonesia has changed the airport name. Ezagren (talk) 05:28, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Loli Hater

Why do you hate lolis? I'd like to see pedobear beat you up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.159.154.105 (talk) 15:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Help please

Could someone please have a look at the settings at Wikipedia:Requests for feedback to ensure it's formatted all correct? This page is waaay backlogged and it's hard to tell the work that needs to be done. Any help appreciated. -- Banjeboi 19:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I made some edits to WP:FEED (I was trying to get {{resolved}} and {{stale}} to work), and I thought I might have broken something. I reverted my changes, but that didn't help. It now appears that may have been completely unrelated—it's not just WP:FEED that isn't being archived, as Special:Contributions/ClueBot III shows no activity since 15 February.

Someone want to give the 'bot a kick and wake it up? Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 00:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Anyone? – ukexpat (talk) 20:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

warning?

I've just been given a warning for a page i've never visited about a comment i've never made about someone i've never heard of. Can someone sort it out, as I don't know what the ramifications of getting a warning are.

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=New_media&diff=prev&oldid=192393398 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.45.92 (talk) 12:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

warning was from 2 years ago - typical anon-IP confusion, not a problem. Studerby (talk) 00:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

cluebot not running?

The user contribution seems to indicate it's been down for a week (unless I'm having a brainfart, again). Studerby (talk) 00:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Something to look out for

I reverted this vandalism yesterday diff, might want to add it to the list. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Parameters not listed

Is there a page where I can find a description of ALL the parameters? The full example contains many parameters that aren't described. MutantPlatypus (talk) 05:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

User:ClueBot III#Other parameters -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 15:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

What do the archivebox and box-advert parameters do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MutantPlatypus (talk • contribs) 20:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Archivebox puts an archive box around the list. box-advert puts the "This page is archived by ClueBot III." tag at the bottom of the archive box. -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 21:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe shouldn't report IP:s testing this sandbox?

I wrote this under User_talk:ClueBot/Sandbox, but I guess nobody reads that page.

Hi!

I was ofcourse curious of this robot, so I logged out and wrote some profanities in the User:ClueBot/Sandbox page, and it did get reverted.

But I also noted that my IP got reported.

I thought the Sandbox-page would be handled in a special maner so that one could test the robot without concerns about getting one's IP blocked? Algotr (talk) 21:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

False positive

How did this happen??? Obviously Fourier is a person's name. How could that edit get mistaken for vandalism? Michael Hardy (talk) 19:41, 27 February 2010 (UTC)