This is an old revision of this page, as edited by NaomiAmethyst (talk | contribs) at 23:42, 16 July 2021 (→WHOOP WHOOP TERRAIN TERRAIN: Reply.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 23:42, 16 July 2021 by NaomiAmethyst (talk | contribs) (→WHOOP WHOOP TERRAIN TERRAIN: Reply.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| Skip to table of contents |
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 • Frequently Asked Questions Purpose of this PageThis page is for comments on or questions about the ClueBots.
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.
| 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. |
He mean
He removed one of my changes 😔 Snow foxy (talk) 19:55, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Agree Djensje (talk) 03:01, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
ClueBot NG making Deprecated API calls
Hello!
It seems the ClueBot NG account is still doing some action=query&prop=info&intoken= API calls, which have been deprecated for years. In support of phab:T280806, is there any chance you can switch to more modern token handling?
Thanks!
Reedy (talk) 12:14, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
- If it helps. it's with a ClueBot/2.0 User Agent. Reedy (talk) 12:16, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
Thank you very much!
Thank you for fixing the "List of Pixar Films" page! I was fixing the page at the same time you were and didn't realize it until I reloaded the page. Much thanks indeed! Red4Smash (talk) 18:55, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
WHOOP WHOOP TERRAIN TERRAIN
I've seen (very rarely) the robot remove bad edits that weren't actually vandalism, which makes for a bad edit summary but at least the removed material needed to be removed.
But here the edits were not only not vandalism, but they were actually fine (if not perfect), particularly since by a brand new editor. A promising new editor who was confused as to why she was being called a vandal right off, which is not good.
I hate to say it, but it looks like ClueBot violated the First Law of Robotics here, assuming you define "injury" to include "insult" which I would.
My understanding is that the robot is beyond human control at this point, but here's a suggestion that I think will help: change the edit summaries, from "Reverting possible vandalism" to something milder. Like "Reverting edit per ClueBot algorithm" or something. ("Algorithm", I don't know, pick a better term.) That gets the job done and its simply descriptive so it doesn't insult anyone (I know that this's quite rare, but still). Herostratus (talk) 21:43, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Herostratus: I tried to report a false positive in June, not only could I not report it at the page you're meant to report on (persistent "bad captcha" message), my post here was also ignored. Beyond human control is right. DuncanHill (talk) 22:42, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
- The bot's wording very intentionally never accuses the editor of vandalism. The edit summary says "possible vandalism". The initial warning simply states that a computer program has undone the edit, saying nothing about vandalism. The second warning states that the edits appear to be vandalism to the bot. It's not until warning number 3 that the bot's messaging changes to directly claim vandalism.
- A further note, about that edit in particular: While this is not what the bot is looking for, it's far from perfect. No sources or references, not formatted like the rest of the entries (not italics, a hyphen instead of an ndash), inconsistent spacing and punctuation, "watermelon like" should be "watermelon-like", "that grown" should be "that grows" or "that is grown", "remote" should be "remove", "prosesed" should be "processed", "world famous" should be "world-famous", "liqeur" should be "liqueur", "on ground" should be "on the ground" (or something else?), "the jam is eaten" should be its own sentence or "and is eaten", "kan" should be "can", and so on. The bot is not designed to pick up on any one of these things in particular, but it does analyze most of this, and taken together with common patterns found in other vandalism, it determined this looked enough like vandalism. -- Cobi 23:41, 16 July 2021 (UTC)