| Revision as of 23:40, 23 September 2018 editGatemansgc (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers26,469 edits →Why was the edit summary on CBNG reverts changed?: Agreed← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:38, 24 September 2018 edit undoNaomiAmethyst (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers, Template editors6,271 edits →Why was the edit summary on CBNG reverts changed?: Reply.Next edit → | ||
| Line 64: | Line 64: | ||
| :I don't know, but the word "noncompliance" coming from a bot sure sounds like a dystopian robot police movie quote to me. --] (]) 23:21, 23 September 2018 (UTC) | :I don't know, but the word "noncompliance" coming from a bot sure sounds like a dystopian robot police movie quote to me. --] (]) 23:21, 23 September 2018 (UTC) | ||
| ::Agreed. It does sound more harsh than "possible vandalism". <span style="text-shadow:green 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em">]</span> (]) 23:40, 23 September 2018 (UTC) | ::Agreed. It does sound more harsh than "possible vandalism". <span style="text-shadow:green 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em">]</span> (]) 23:40, 23 September 2018 (UTC) | ||
| :::There was a discussion a while back around this: ] | |||
| :::] or ] might have accidentally reverted the revert in the code. -- ]<sup>(]|]|])</sup> 00:38, 24 September 2018 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 00:38, 24 September 2018
This user is NOT a humanThis is the combined talk page for ClueBot NG and ClueBot III. These users are automated computer programs and are not humans. Please be aware that bots cannot think like a human and cannot operate outside of their programming. Messages you leave on this talk page will not be answered by a bot – either a bot operator or another human will answer you.
False positives and false negativesIf you believe that ClueBot NG has mistakenly identified a good edit as vandalism, please follow the directions in the warning it gave or click here. Please do not report it on this talk page. It takes less time to report the case to the correct location, and we can handle it more effectively there.If you believe that ClueBot NG has missed an edit that is vandalism, again do not report it here. ClueBot is unable to catch all vandalism. Just revert the edit and warn the editor. ClueBot NG Links!Report False Positives •
The current status of ClueBot NG is: Running
The current status of ClueBot III is: Running
Praise should go on the praise page. Barnstars and other awards should go on the awards page.
Use the "new section" button at the top of this page to add a new section. Use the link above each section to edit that section.
This page is automatically archived by ClueBot III.
The ClueBots' owner or someone else who knows the answer to your question will reply on this page.
Template:Archive box collapsible
| ClueBots | |
|---|---|
| ClueBot NG/Anti-vandalism · ClueBot II/ClueBot Script |  |
| ClueBot III/Archive · Talk page for all ClueBots |
 | Beware! This user's talk page is monitored by talk page watchers. Some of them even talk back. |
A cup of coffee for you!
|
You need this. Just sayin'. You've been working nonstop for the past decade or so. Hdjensofjfnen (If you want to trout me, go ahead!) 23:37, 17 September 2018 (UTC) |
I've just got a great idea
At the moment, when Cluebot NG decides that an edit isn't vandalism, it simply ignores it. My idea is to make edits that are considered "almost-vandalism", as-in edits that are almost considered vandalism, but aren't reverted, and create a script for the Recent Changes Feed that lists all the "almost-vandalism" edits, allowing recent changes patrollers to clear up the stuff that Cluebot NG can't/won't revert, yet are still vandalism. Terrariola 13:21, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Terrariola: Nice idea! So Cluebot could have its own "RSS" feed in a separate page? Hdjensofjfnen (If you want to trout me, go ahead!) 16:20, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Terrariola and Hdjensofjfnen: I haven't tried the tool, but the description at Misplaced Pages:STiki#Edit prioritization seems to indicate this is already available. -- John of Reading (talk) 16:51, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
- It used to be the default queue STiki used, but reportedly the IRC feed that the bot used to relay this information died, and with ClueNet being in shambles these days it wasn't revived, so West.andrew.g changed the default queue to STiki's own metadata queue. STiki's own method of deciding what's vandalism and what isn't works fairly well, and STiki by design always monitors recent changes and adds edits to its queue even when nobody's currently using it, so you can already use STiki to go through and review the edits that CBNG didn't revert. Of course, CBNG's queue was generally the most accurate (at least from what I can remember years ago), so it'd be nice if the maintainers of CBNG could bring it back up. Perhaps set up a channel on freenode and have it be relayed there so other anti-vandalism tools can draw from it more easily? (Huggle 3 and the late DefconBot used to use CBNG scores, at least until it died) —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 03:18, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
(As creator and maintainer of WP:STiki) -- Everything User:K6ka said is accurate. I pestered CBNG's creators for a while after the IRC feed went down, to no avail. CBNG's model was much better, in part because I haven't had the time to retrain my metadata model since its initial creation more than 7(?) years ago. Getting the IRC running again would be a huge boost to anti-vandalism efforts due to STiki and Huggle integration. All the code is already in place to ingest the IRC feed and make the CBNG queue the default for users again. West.andrew.g (talk) 04:48, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
- First, aplogies for the non-replys to the pestering. I will speak to @DamianZaremba: in relation to modifing the CBNG code to get the feed going somewhere else (in theory, not hard) - - Rich 08:42, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Done FreeNode - #wikipedia-en-cbngfeed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rich Smith (talk • contribs) 18:21, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Why was the edit summary on CBNG reverts changed?
Between 17:44, 22 September 2018 and 17:59, 22 September 2018, from "Reverting possible vandalism by USER1 to version by USER2" to "Edit by USER1 has been reverted by ClueBot NG due to possible noncompliance with Misplaced Pages guidelines." Is ClueBot NG going to be branching out into reverting violations other than potential vandalism? Gatemansgc (TɅ̊LK) 22:56, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
- I don't know, but the word "noncompliance" coming from a bot sure sounds like a dystopian robot police movie quote to me. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 23:21, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
- Agreed. It does sound more harsh than "possible vandalism". Gatemansgc (TɅ̊LK) 23:40, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
- There was a discussion a while back around this: User talk:ClueBot Commons/Archives/2017/December#Proposed change to standard wording
- DamianZaremba or Rich Smith might have accidentally reverted the revert in the code. -- Cobi 00:38, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
- Agreed. It does sound more harsh than "possible vandalism". Gatemansgc (TɅ̊LK) 23:40, 23 September 2018 (UTC)