This 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 negatives
If 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.
This 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 [edit] 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.
Because it was blatant vandalism, including the edit summary. I see from ClueBot NG's user page that the more likely criterion was probably edit count above a certain threshold as well as warnings below a certain threshhold, but a compromised account and editing while drunk are both possibilities, and 149 edits strikes me as low for ignoring such an edit even if it was on that basis rather than whitelisting. It amounts to extended confirmed, but not enough to edit contentious topics. I know that avoiding false positives and thereby alienating good faith editors is important, but wouldn't it be wise to override where the vandalism score is above a very high level?
Yngvadottir (
talk) 12:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Not necessarily, because there may be instances where an experienced editor may need to make a legitimate edit that appears to be vandalism by the bot. Such instances of an account with this many edits causing actual vandalism are quite rare, so the net positive of exempting editors with high edit counts is greater than what could be gained by having CBNG monitor edits from those accounts. Lastly, even under the best circumstances ClueBot NG doesn't catch all vandalism even from new users, so there's still the need for human editors and patrollers to keep an eye on things like this. Maybe I'm a bit more desensitized, given how I regularly do a lot of patrolling, and have seen serial sockpuppets pass RFA and become admins, but in any case it wouldn't be within CBNG's purview to handle compromised accounts or disgruntled editors deciding to go rogue. Besides, we've already had... some characters... crawl out of the woodwork to scream "ClueBot is clueless" when this edit count check was broken (see
ANI thread). —
k6ka🍁 (
Talk ·
Contributions) 13:03, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Something special' for ClueBot and its creators
I'm surprised
I was surprised that ClueBot NG can also report users to the AIV. Great job!
Myrealnamm (
💬talk ·
✏️contribs) at 21:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
@
MrPersonHumanGuy and
Local Variable: Both instances happened because the page was moved, but the person who moved the page didn't update the ArchiveThis template to reflect that. I've updated the template in both instances to resolve this. —
k6ka🍁 (
Talk ·
Contributions) 19:50, 28 April 2024 (UTC)reply
This 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 negatives
If 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.
This 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 [edit] 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.
Because it was blatant vandalism, including the edit summary. I see from ClueBot NG's user page that the more likely criterion was probably edit count above a certain threshold as well as warnings below a certain threshhold, but a compromised account and editing while drunk are both possibilities, and 149 edits strikes me as low for ignoring such an edit even if it was on that basis rather than whitelisting. It amounts to extended confirmed, but not enough to edit contentious topics. I know that avoiding false positives and thereby alienating good faith editors is important, but wouldn't it be wise to override where the vandalism score is above a very high level?
Yngvadottir (
talk) 12:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Not necessarily, because there may be instances where an experienced editor may need to make a legitimate edit that appears to be vandalism by the bot. Such instances of an account with this many edits causing actual vandalism are quite rare, so the net positive of exempting editors with high edit counts is greater than what could be gained by having CBNG monitor edits from those accounts. Lastly, even under the best circumstances ClueBot NG doesn't catch all vandalism even from new users, so there's still the need for human editors and patrollers to keep an eye on things like this. Maybe I'm a bit more desensitized, given how I regularly do a lot of patrolling, and have seen serial sockpuppets pass RFA and become admins, but in any case it wouldn't be within CBNG's purview to handle compromised accounts or disgruntled editors deciding to go rogue. Besides, we've already had... some characters... crawl out of the woodwork to scream "ClueBot is clueless" when this edit count check was broken (see
ANI thread). —
k6ka🍁 (
Talk ·
Contributions) 13:03, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Something special' for ClueBot and its creators
I'm surprised
I was surprised that ClueBot NG can also report users to the AIV. Great job!
Myrealnamm (
💬talk ·
✏️contribs) at 21:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
@
MrPersonHumanGuy and
Local Variable: Both instances happened because the page was moved, but the person who moved the page didn't update the ArchiveThis template to reflect that. I've updated the template in both instances to resolve this. —
k6ka🍁 (
Talk ·
Contributions) 19:50, 28 April 2024 (UTC)reply