ClueBot Commons
False positives and false negativesIf 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.
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.
| 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. |
Duplicate month heading
editI may be the last to notice this, but I'm looking at a user talk page where ClueBot NG created a month heading identical to the heading of the previous section. Is there an obscure rule at work here? David Brooks (talk) 03:02, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- @DavidBrooks: No obscure rules here: the month heading is added by the warning template the bot uses, so it's always added whenever the bot issues a level one warning (cf. User_talk:ClueBot_Commons/Archives/2022/November#Bug_with_warnings) —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 20:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
Maine Medical Center
editI see you reverted an edit by another user and selected "possible vandalism". Their edit was accurate. MaineHealth (the organization that owns Maine Medical Center) renamed Southern Maine Health Care in Biddeford and Sanford to Maine Medical Center Biddeford Campus and Maine Medical Center Sanford campus and there's the Portland campus. https://www.mainehealth.org/mainehealth-announces-unified-identity-across-its-health-care-system GamerKlim9716 (talk) 11:35, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- @GamerKlim9716: ClueBot NG is a bot and not a human. Please report false positives using the specified instructions and not on this talk page. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 20:13, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
- It seems pretty poor at correctly identifying vandalism. This should be left to humans. Bryan Krippner (talk) 10:50, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Bryan Krippner: Can you provide any evidence as to how it's "pretty poor" at its job? As explained by the bot's developers, mistakes can and do happen, the same way email spam filters occasionally classify legitimate emails as spam. However, the general consensus is that the bot is a net positive in helping with recent changes patrolling; as a whole, the few mistakes it does make (and the ones people overemphasize and blow out of proportion) are worth the many more correct vandalism reversions it does. The bot was never intended to replace human patrollers, but rather to help them (speaking as a patroller myself). Feel free to complain, but unhelpful complaints with no supporting evidence or no suggestions to improve are an unproductive use of time. Presently, you two are complaining about one edit (without even providing any diffs to the edit in question!) and saying the bot is terrible because of it, seemingly ignoring the 14 years of service it's provided. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 10:57, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
- I am not complaining about the same edit. I am complaining about the latest one here:
- https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Elisha_Netanyahu&action=history
- What "evidence" did you use to arrive at that conclusion?
- Could YOU provide evidence for YOUR claim that there aren't many errors. How do you find out whether a reversion has been made in error? Do you rely on people reporting it? That would be a tiny fraction of the total.
- And how would I be able to make a suggestion for improvement? That would require me to understand how it works. I guess next time I want to complain about a power outage I will have to provide suggestions for improving the engineering of the power grid. Bryan Krippner (talk) 12:06, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Bryan Krippner: Can you provide any evidence as to how it's "pretty poor" at its job? As explained by the bot's developers, mistakes can and do happen, the same way email spam filters occasionally classify legitimate emails as spam. However, the general consensus is that the bot is a net positive in helping with recent changes patrolling; as a whole, the few mistakes it does make (and the ones people overemphasize and blow out of proportion) are worth the many more correct vandalism reversions it does. The bot was never intended to replace human patrollers, but rather to help them (speaking as a patroller myself). Feel free to complain, but unhelpful complaints with no supporting evidence or no suggestions to improve are an unproductive use of time. Presently, you two are complaining about one edit (without even providing any diffs to the edit in question!) and saying the bot is terrible because of it, seemingly ignoring the 14 years of service it's provided. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 10:57, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
- It seems pretty poor at correctly identifying vandalism. This should be left to humans. Bryan Krippner (talk) 10:50, 23 October 2024 (UTC)