m →ClueBot V?: - reply |
Crispy1989 (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 245: | Line 245: | ||
:::It may be a project put on hiatus; it hasn't made any contributions since '08, and it appears all of [[User:Cobi|Cobi]]'s efforts are focused on [[User:ClueBot NG|ClueBot NG]], as well as other, non-Wikipedia-related projects. -- [[User:Snofox|SnoFox]]<sup>([[User talk:Snofox|t]]|[[Special:Contributions/Snofox|c]])</sup> 05:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC) |
:::It may be a project put on hiatus; it hasn't made any contributions since '08, and it appears all of [[User:Cobi|Cobi]]'s efforts are focused on [[User:ClueBot NG|ClueBot NG]], as well as other, non-Wikipedia-related projects. -- [[User:Snofox|SnoFox]]<sup>([[User talk:Snofox|t]]|[[Special:Contributions/Snofox|c]])</sup> 05:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC) |
||
== Cluebot NG New False Positive Rate == |
|||
Due to complaints from a small (but apparently very vocal) minority that 1 in 400 false positives does not justify a 50+% vandalism catch rate, Cluebot NG's false positive rate (and vandalism catch rate) have been reduced by about half. It's still about 3x as effective as the previous Cluebot, but will remain crippled for now until the developers and dataset contributors can bring it back up to full potential while maintaining the 1 in 1000 (0.1%) false positive rate mandated by critics. Sorry all. |
|||
Those wishing to help bring the bot back up to full potential can contribute to the dataset review interface. [[User:Crispy1989|Crispy1989]] ([[User talk:Crispy1989|talk]]) 05:57, 29 November 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 05:57, 29 November 2010
This page is for comments on the bot or questions about the bot.
Report false positives on the false positives page, not here.
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 header to edit that header.
This page is automatically archived by ClueBot III.
ClueBot's owner or someone else who knows the answer to your question will reply on this page unless you request otherwise.
ClueBots | |
---|---|
ClueBot NG/Anti-vandalism · ClueBot II/ClueBot Script | |
ClueBot III/Archive · Talk page for all ClueBots |
|
deleted links
Why were all of my links deleted? One strike you're out Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snjgwu (talk • contribs) 22:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
the error reporting page seems to be broken
I entered the revert id (46513) at http://delta.cluenet.org/~cobi/cluebot.php, but there was no confirmation that my report was received. I tried several times, using different browsers. Is the False Positives page broken? --Stepheng3 (talk) 02:59, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- I find it hard to believe I'm the only person encountering this problem. Is anybody listening? --Stepheng3 (talk) 21:39, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Stephen, if you look at the first post on the page it seems a few users are having trouble reporting false positives --5 albert square (talk) 21:53, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
- Why hasn't this been fixed? Why is the bot allowed to continue operating when there's no way to report false positives? --Stepheng3 (talk) 02:13, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
- Stepheng3: Where have you found this link? I believe the new error reporting page is found here. -- SnoFox(t|c) 23:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
- I originally got there by way of the wikilink in the edit summary that ClueBot NG provided for this edit. The wikilink took me to User:ClueBot NG/B, which redirected to Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/ClueBot NG. Somehow I got to a page that resembled User:ClueBot NG/FalsePositives but probably wasn't, since I see that the latter page was only created on November 21st.
- Trying to recreate the process just now, I got to User:ClueBot NG/FalsePositives. That points to cobihome.external.cluenet.org, so it seems that the problem (whatever it was) has been dealt with.--Stepheng3 (talk) 22:15, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Stepheng3: Where have you found this link? I believe the new error reporting page is found here. -- SnoFox(t|c) 23:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
- Why hasn't this been fixed? Why is the bot allowed to continue operating when there's no way to report false positives? --Stepheng3 (talk) 02:13, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Stephen, if you look at the first post on the page it seems a few users are having trouble reporting false positives --5 albert square (talk) 21:53, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Just out of curiousity.........
.........is there anywhere that we can see whether or not we've beaten ClueBot NG to a revert?--5 albert square (talk) 01:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
- Not currently, but beating Cluebot-NG is fairly rare. It only occurs a few times per hour, and even then it's a network fluke where the API is just being particularly slow on that call. Crispy1989 (talk) 01:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Demeter
I have written most of the existing section "Etymology" in the article.I tried to make some abbreviations -clean up without changing the meaning,because I understand that many details can confuse a reader.I have tried in the past to improve the article,but it was rejected too, so I cannot improve my own section because it can be considered "vandalism".Does the section "Etymology" need clean-up or not?79.103.25.225 (talk) 17:16, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
ClueBot NG source code
Hi. Is the source code available under a free license? Thanks. emijrp (talk) 22:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
false positive rate
{{Edit protected|User:ClueBot NG/Run}}
I reviewed a couple dozen edits by ClueBotNG and found two false positives. The false positive rate is undoubtedly far higher than the claimed 0.25%. The bot is biting good-faith editors at an astounding rate. Please shut off the bot until a systematic, third-party evaluation is performed to explain out why its false positive rate is so high. To shut down the bot, follow the instructions at the top of User:ClueBot NG. --Stepheng3 (talk) 23:53, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- I fully agree. I examined the most recent 248 reverts ending at 04:49, 27 November 2010. On average, out of every 248 edits there should be 0.62 incorrectly reverted edits. I found many more than that (13/248 = an alarming 5.24%), so many that it is impossible to disagree. PleaseStand (talk) 05:38, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reddit&diff=prev&oldid=399080486
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sorority_Row&diff=prev&oldid=399077584
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Best_Friends_(film)&diff=prev&oldid=399076521
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Benjie_Paras&diff=prev&oldid=399076470
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_The_Walking_Dead_episodes&diff=prev&oldid=399072540
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Apache:_Air_Assault&diff=prev&oldid=399071564
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frank_Sheehan&diff=prev&oldid=399069429
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Lucas_III&diff=prev&oldid=399068986
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maltese_(dog)&diff=prev&oldid=399068943
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Geisha&diff=prev&oldid=399068770
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nintendogs&diff=prev&oldid=399068228
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Sable_Quean&diff=prev&oldid=399065762
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creeper&diff=prev&oldid=399061905
- The naive way to calculate false positives: The range of the edit IDs you claim: 399080486 - 399061905 = 18,581. The false positives: 13. The naive false positive rate is: 13 / 18581 * 100% = 0.07%.
- If I look at the database to see how many in that range are main space edits:
mysql> SELECT COUNT(*) AS `count` FROM `revision` JOIN `page` ON `rev_page` = `page_id` WHERE `page_namespace` = 0 AND `rev_id` > 399061905 AND `rev_id` < 399080486\G *************************** 1. row *************************** count: 12438 1 row in set (0.63 sec)
- There are 12,483 edits between those edit IDs in the main space. That is, ClueBot NG has categorized 12,483 edits, and classified 13 incorrectly as vandalism. The real false positive rate is: 13 / 12483 * 100% = 0.10%.
- Both of these show that the bot is well under its 0.25% false positive rate. Thanks. -- Cobi(t|c|b) 11:13, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- Hi. If you use that way for counting, I think that the false positive rate must be selected much lower. 12483 edits may contain a lot of admin edits, trusted/veteran/rollback users, and of course bots! (interwikis, tagging, and other tasks). If you remove that good edits, how many potentially harmful edits exist and need to be checked by ClueBot NG? Do you seriously count skiping admin edits (and Jimbo edits) as a success? That is obvious! In that case, a 0.25% false positive rate is not a big deal. emijrp (talk) 13:30, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- If you want, I'll recalculate false positives by first discarding edits by users with more than 50 edits.
mysql> SELECT COUNT(*) AS `count` FROM `revision` JOIN `page` ON `rev_page` = `page_id` JOIN `user` ON `user_id` = `rev_user` WHERE `page_namespace` = 0 AND `rev_id` > 399061905 AND `rev_id` < 399080486 AND `user_editcount` < 50\G *************************** 1. row *************************** count: 855 1 row in set (3 min 19.45 sec) mysql> SELECT COUNT(*) AS `count` FROM `revision` JOIN `page` ON `rev_page` = `page_id` WHERE `page_namespace` = 0 AND `rev_id` > 399061905 AND `rev_id` < 399080486 AND `rev_user` = 0\G *************************** 1. row *************************** count: 3494 1 row in set (0.27 sec)
- This means that there were 855 edits by registered users with less than 50 edits, and 3494 edits by anonymous users. 13 / (855 + 3494) * 100% = 0.29% which is within an acceptable statistical error of 0.25% (0.04% deviation). This discrepancy is likely due to the small sample set. -- Cobi(t|c|b) 13:44, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- The problem here is that nobody cares about the false negatives. False positives are harmful. If the last 248 reverts by ClueBot NG contain 13 false positives, ~5%, that is an huge percent. I think that the false positive rate must be set the lowest possible, and we need to put our efforts in improving the dataset. emijrp (talk) 14:19, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
“ | If the false positive rate is [...] constant [...], it can also be interpreted as the expected proportion among all tests performed that are false positives. | ” |
— Wikipedia, False positive rate |
- I was misled by the terminology. I was looking at the fraction of bot reverts that were not vandalism, which seems to be around 5%. I went and looked up the definition. Technically, the false positive rate is defined as the proportion of absent events that yield positive test outcomes, i.e., the conditional probability of a revert given a good-faithe edit. I wonder if the good people who approved this bot were misled as I was.
- An FPR of 0.25% is way too high because each false positive does an incredible amount of harm to the Encyclopedia by alienating a well-meaning contributor. Reading the comments at User:ClueBot NG/FalsePositives/Reports is painful, heartbreaking. This bot is driving people away from Wikipedia.
- If the bot looks at 20,000 good-faith edits per day and bites about 0.25%, that's 50 good-faith editors per day. That's a statistic that pains me. I want this bot stopped. I want it stopped until the frequency of false positives is brought below one per day. Are any admins reading this? Please look at what the bot is doing and decide for yourself.
- I believe that most of the FPs are going unreported, so I'll be reviewing the bot's edits and reporting false positives whenever I get the chance.
- --Stepheng3 (talk) 18:15, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- It was explained fairly clearly early on. -- Cobi(t|c|b) 18:21, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- The bot was approved based on the claim that there would be "only a few false positives per day". I am seeing about eight per hour. What has gone wrong? --Stepheng3 (talk) 19:07, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- I agree that something should be done about the rate of false positives, however, that's not really what {{editprotected}} is for, so I've disabled the template. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- The bot was approved based on the claim that there would be "only a few false positives per day". I am seeing about eight per hour. What has gone wrong? --Stepheng3 (talk) 19:07, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- It was explained fairly clearly early on. -- Cobi(t|c|b) 18:21, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- The false positive rate of 0.25% has been set and accepted by the Wikipedia BAG.
- The meaning of false positive rate is clear, and has been clarified and explained numerous times.
- The false positive rate of 0.25% is calculated and verified during a dry trial of random edits, verifying its correctness.
- The numbers posted here of false positives fall well within the expected 0.25% false positive rate, further confirming its accuracy.
- The warnings left by the bot make it clear that false positives happen, and give clear instructions how to undo incorrect reverts. This also links to a userpage section explaining the concept in more detail.
If any of these items are incorrect, please correct me. I am impartial as to where the FP rate is set. Statistics of the bot's efficacy indicate that it is most effective with minimum false positives at a rate of 0.25%. Decreasing this will lessen the bot's catch rate, but it will still function. If you disagree with my and others' current assessment that 0.25% is an acceptable false positive rate for the volume of vandalism caught, and would like to suggest a different rate, please do so, and we will evaluate the bot based on the given rate, post the results, and recommend whether or not the suggested FP rate is within reason.
I should also note that, where there are false positives, they are frequently not due to things like bad words, as they have been with previous bots. Because of this, the user is less likely to think that they have done something wrong, and more likely to correct the revert and report it. Crispy1989 (talk) 01:21, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- I suggest a false positive rate that will result in "only a few false positives per day" to match the claim made at User:ClueBot_NG/B#Trial_Summary.
- I spent many hours today reviewing each of the bot's edits, and on the basis of that sample, I assert that most false positives are not being reported. I'm unsure why this is, but it might have something to do with the complex and intimidating nature of the reporting process or the fact that most of the editors impacted are not logged in. --Stepheng3 (talk) 06:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- A few false positives a day is relative, and actual number of false positives is relative to total edits per day. One in four hundred edits constitutes "a few" to me. It is entirely possible, and likely, that many false positives are not being reported. However, the 0.25% false positive rate is an accurate maximum. Crispy1989 (talk) 06:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
In case any of the posters here are confused, I will reiterate how the false positive rate ties into the bot's function. I have already explained this repeatedly on the BRFA and the bot's user page, but then again, we've also repeatedly explained the meaning and calculation of "false positive rate", so I'll once again reiterate the significance of the false positive rate in relation to the bot's algorithm. This is explained in much more detail on the bot's user page, so I strongly encourage posters to read what is there before posting additional comments here.
The bot's algorithm generates a probability that a given edit is vandalism. This generated probability is then compared to a threshold to determine whether or not it should be reverted. This threshold is adjustable - if the threshold is too low, there will be many false positives. If the threshold is too high, the bot will not do its job, and will not revert much vandalism. For ease of understanding the bot's impact, the threshold is automatically calculated based on a set false positive rate. The false positive rate can be easily adjusted simply by changing a configuration file. The higher the set rate, the more vandalism is caught, but also the more false positives. The FP rate is given as a percentage, and not as a raw number of edits, because a percentage is much more significant than a raw number. Details on the FP rate's calculation and why it is accurate are available on the bot's user page.
The false positive rate of 0.25% was chosen by examining result graphs and checking for a dropoff point. This point is right around a FP rate of 0.25%. It is half of what was originally suggested to me - 0.5%.
Approximately 10% of all edits on Wikipedia are vandalism. Vandal fighters spend countless hours perusing recent changes and manually reverting vandalism - countless man-hours spent just trying to preserve the current data, when that time could be spent adding more. And even with the thorough efforts of vandal-fighters, a large amount of vandalism is not caught at all, or at least for a significant period of time. A bot such as Cluebot-NG not only allows vandal fighters to spend more time editing and less time reverting, but also prevents many instances of vandalism from slipping through the cracks. What good is an encyclopedia if its information cannot be relied on? The reality is, undetected vandalism on Wikipedia causes significantly more problems than (theoretical) lack of a few minor edits. I, for one, am tired of hearing numerous people refuse to accept Wikipedia as a reliable source, simply because "anyone can vandalize it".
False positives, while indeed unfortunate, are not at all difficult to fix. In fact, clear instructions are given in the posted warning explaining how to redo the edit, and remove the warning. Although many false positives probably do go unreported (note: this does not affect the calculated FP rate), this does not mean they are uncorrected.
I expect those opposed to the bot to clearly admit (with reasoning) that they feel that stopping less than 1 in 400 (easily-corrected) false positives is worth the bot not catching more than 200 in 400 vandalism edits.
As a final note - I do not expect everyone to fully understand the algorithm that is used to detect vandalism. However, I do expect those who complain, and indeed directly interfere with the bot's function, to read the clear information that is available before making such complaints. In this way, the user may be able to contribute helpful advice or suggestions, rather than rant.
Those wishing to suggest a different false positive rate should suggest a percentage, as this is what a false positive rate is. I cannot evaluate subjective or relative phrases (if anyone has suggestions as to how I can program a machine to follow a subjective measure, I'd be very willing to listen and consider it). With a finite number to work with, I can give actual statistics on how much extra work this would cause vandal-fighters, and for what fraction of a quarter of a percent gain in false positive reduction it would cost. Crispy1989 (talk) 06:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- To get away from subjective measures, let's say that "a few" means 5. How many edits does the bot consider in a typical day? Call that X. I don't know what X is, but presumably the owners of the bot can find out. So the number of good-faith edits is about 0.9*X. What I'm asking for is a target FP rate of 555/X percent. If the bot considers 20,000 edits per day, that would point to an FP rate of 0.028%: 5 FPs out of 18,000 edits.
- Even if ClueBot NG were 100% effective at reverting vandalism, people would still find inaccuracies in Wikipedia, so it still couldn't be relied upon. Most of the fixes that ClueBot NG applies have little impact on effective accuracy of the encyclopedia. It's most effective at removing bad words and pictures of body parts. A serious user looking for information is not going to be misled by such distractions.
- Just because ClueBot NG allows a few bad edits through does not mean that those edits will stand forever. We do have other tools for removing vandalism.
- Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is not just a collection of data. It is also a community of editors. A few of today's clueless IP editors will go on become next year's vandal fighters and administrators -- if they're not bitten on their fifth or sixth edit by a bot that can't distinguish between vandalism and a good-faith attempt to contribute.
- --Stepheng3 (talk) 07:21, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- You did not address most of my points. Primarily, you seem to entirely disregard the countless man-hours human vandal fighters spend on the task (you refer to them as "other tools" - without a bot as a first line of defense, the human vandal fighters are the only other way to revert vandalism). As I mention (and you ignore), the time these experienced human vandal fighters spend is at least as valuable as the small amount of time spent by new users correcting false positives. Vandal fighters are intelligent people capable of adding much to the encyclopedia, if they weren't so dedicated to keeping it clean for the rest of us - they are not "tools". Additionally, although more than half of vandalism is caught by human editors (without any bot running), some *does* inevitably get through, and that makes it clear to people using Wikipedia that it cannot be trusted - much moreso than minor inaccuracies such as are present in any other encyclopedia. And, contrary to your statement, the bot reverts much more than obvious vandalism and bad words. The section on the algorithm explains how, and other posts on this talk page contain individual examples from grateful users. You also make the assumption that all users subject to false positives are deterred by the event. Considering you also ignore my statement about the ease of fixing a false positive, this is not surprising. If a false positive were a permanent scar on a user's record, or required hours of time to fix, then yes, you would be correct. But this is not the case.
- You should also keep in mind that the bot is not fully approved. It is in a trial period, and it is living up to its stated stats. The organization responsible for determining whether or not the bot is operating within acceptable limits is the BAG, and the purpose of the BRFA is to gather community input. I am confused as to why you are complaining here, when your chance to prevent the bot from being approved lies with the BRFA. If you are serious about stopping the bot, I suggest you continue this on the BRFA, where BAG members will see your complaints, and may take them into consideration.
- The false positive rate you suggest is unreasonably low. I cannot even give accurate statistics based on that FP rate, because the trial dataset we use is not large enough.
- The administrator shut-off is intended to be used when the bot is behaving unexpectedly. Right now, it is behaving exactly as intended. The bot will stop when the trial ends - either when the 14 days are over, or if a BAG member orders it to be stopped prematurely. At that point, it will only be restarted if it is approved by the BAG. I expect you to bring this discussion to the BRFA, and unless a BAG member decides soon to end the trial early, I will restart the bot so it can complete its trial. Crispy1989 (talk) 08:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
The quid is that you can't disrupt newbies editing Wikipedia because you want to revert more vandalism. Obviously, if I code a bot which reverts all the edits, I will get a 100% vandalism free Wikipedia, but, I will lose 100% of good faith edits too. We have seen that 0.25% is very high, 13 false positives in ~250 bot reverts. I doubt that the previous anti-vandalismbots had that high false positive rate. I would like to help you to improve the IA of the bot, because that is the solution to this problem. We can't to catch more vandalism while disrupting good faith edits. That breaks the Wikipedia model. Regards. emijrp (talk) 11:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
__
The gist of User:Stepheng3's argument appears to be that novice editors will be driven away from Wikipedia when they discover their good-faith edits have been reverted by User:ClueBot_NG. Assuming this argument is made in good faith, it would be appropriate to provide some evidence.
Since none has been given, it's fair to respond with gut feeling: personally, i feel common sense will prevail. If the revert note states it's been instigated by a bot, a human will not feel unfairly criticized. Exceptions prove the rule.
I came across this discussion when i saw ClueBot_NG had reverted vandalism on the antimatter article within a minute of its occurrence. I thought this was pretty damn cool.
Reading on, i'm surprised that a single user can stop such a project in its tracks. After all the prep and committee-ese that's apparently gone into this trial, isn't that .. inappropriate?
As an aside, i did a quick review of the edits listed at the beginning of this section; in my opinion, at least two are not false positives at all
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Best_Friends_(film)&diff=prev&oldid=399076521
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Lucas_III&diff=prev&oldid=399068986
and i only found one or two that i would not agree with as a human editor. So if this is supposed to be evidence of an unacceptably high false-positive rate, i'd say: your data does not support that conclusion. Doceddi (talk) 12:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- I spend most of my editing time on recent changes patrol / anti-vandalism. I've seen several hundred Cluebot (not distinguishing between various incarnations) reverts and have only reverted two or three of the Cluebot reverts as false positives. As I'm largely editing outside areas I know very much about when on patrol, I'm pretty sure that my own false positive rate is far higher than Cluebot's. It is claimed that if we didn't tools like Cluebot automatically reverting vandalism it would eventually be corrected by human editors but I have doubts about this approach:
- We would need many more editors to be actively involved in anti-vandalism patrols to pick up the workload
- Many, usually smaller, infrequently visited pages would only be viewed periodically and the vandalism could sit there a long time
- Editors who are patrolling recent changes are working to keep Wikipedia at the level of correctness and completion it has now and aren't working to improve Wikipedia
- Sure, improve and refine the tools, but let's not abandon the ones we have. Kiore (talk) 18:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you Crispy for pointing me to the correct place to get my concerns addressed. (How strange that BRFA was not suggested earlier.) I will take my concerns there. However, I'd first like to correct one misconception here.
- I never referred to human anti-vandals as "tools"; human anti-vandals (including myself) were the "we" in that sentence. By "tools" I was referring to inanimate things like Wikipedia:Twinkle and the old User:ClueBot. --Stepheng3 (talk) 18:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- The BRFA is indeed where this kind of discussion should occur. I assumed you started it here because you did not want their involvement for some reason (considering you do know of the BRFA's existence, have read part of it, and have seen the edit summary left by the bot). Tools like Twinkle and Huggle are not what revert vandalism - ultimately it is the humans and their time that is at stake. The old ClueBot only caught about 5% of vandalism, so, while helpful, it could not make nearly the dent in vandalism the Cluebot-NG can. Also, it's incorrect to assume that it had fewer false positives, particularly when you compare the catch rates. The old ClueBot may have had fewer reported false positives, because the old ClueBot's false positives were predictable, and usually triggered by bad words used in acceptable contexts, or similar. This led users that were subject to false positives to think they had done something wrong. Cluebot-NG's false positives are often not at all what one would expect, and users can clearly see that it is not their fault, and is indeed bot error. Crispy1989 (talk) 19:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- I restarted the bot. (Any autoconfirmed user could've done this, had they tried.) And here is the BRFA link, in case people care to discuss things futher: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/ClueBot NG. --Stepheng3 (talk) 19:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- Nobody restarted it themselves because 1) We wanted to hear your entire argument and reasoning first, 2) We don't disrespect and revert other editor's decisions without doing our own thorough research first, 3) We wanted to hear some wider input from others, and 4) We didn't want to start an edit war. Crispy1989 (talk) 19:30, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Possible vandalism on Ved Buens Ende?
I will revert your edit. That guy just wanted to make thath article more interesting. I think we must let him to do his job till the end, he has just started. Vater-96 (talk) 00:07, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
The Walking Dead!!
Hey, hi.
I just wanted to tell why did I put the "short summary".
As you now FOX transmits internationally the TV series: "The Walking Dead"
I'am from Latin America, and while watching TV I saw a commerial about the next episode of The Walking Dead, (revealing what I out on the episodes section.
If you want references, and PROBE he's a video of the ORIGINAL "TV" online of Fox Latin America:
http://mundofox.com/la/videos/the-walking-dead
Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.171.42.41 (talk) 06:26, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
An unnecessary unedit
You didn't have to unedit The Penguins of Madagascar. It just needed a little more info. Some pages need a little more info. It's what makes it fun. 76.26.187.138 (talk) 14:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Vandalism
Hi. CuriousColonal = Vandalism (Origin theories of Christopher Columbus) --Davide41 (talk) 16:14, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Bruno Mars album
My edit was right... The first version said that the album would come out on 7th December, but that's wrong because albums usually come out on Fridays. So I change it back to my edit (which was right, 4th February 2011) --79.216.184.12 (talk) 17:02, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- See [1] Airplaneman ✈ 19:01, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Trial over already?
The new guy was on a roll! mechamind90 02:24, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- [2] I believe a {{trout}} or a {{whale}} to Stepheng3 is in order. 930913 (Congratulate/Complaints) 02:29, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- I paused the bot. If you think >100 false positives (i.e. bitten/alienated users) per day is acceptable, go ahead and revert me.--Stepheng3 (talk) 05:20, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- I am leaving the bot paused for a day or so, pending a response from Stepheng3 to my last post in the above thread, discussing this issue. As stated there, most people are fine with a small fraction of a percent of edits being reverted as false positives - Stepheng3 fails to include perspective in the flat numbers he posts, and also fails to account for the fact that the bot reduces vandal-fighter workload by half or more. I am open to being corrected, so I am awaiting his response to my above post before restarting. If he does not respond soon, however, I'll allow the bot to continue its work. Anyone else with something to contribute to the thread should do so. Crispy1989 (talk) 05:57, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- I paused the bot. If you think >100 false positives (i.e. bitten/alienated users) per day is acceptable, go ahead and revert me.--Stepheng3 (talk) 05:20, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
ClueBot V?
What happened with ClueBot V? I keep seeing things related to it every once in a while, and it looks like it would have been a good thing to have running; is it ever going to become active? ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 01:40, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
- ClueBot V was registered as a possible name for ClueBot NG, I believe. As far as I know, current active bots are: ClueBot, ClueBot II, ClueBot III, ClueBot IV, and ClueBot NG.-- SnoFox(t|c) 02:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
- No, ClueBot V was going to be used for new page patrolling, originally. You can see the request for approval here. I would love to know if anything is ever going to come of that. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 03:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
- It may be a project put on hiatus; it hasn't made any contributions since '08, and it appears all of Cobi's efforts are focused on ClueBot NG, as well as other, non-Wikipedia-related projects. -- SnoFox(t|c) 05:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Cluebot NG New False Positive Rate
Due to complaints from a small (but apparently very vocal) minority that 1 in 400 false positives does not justify a 50+% vandalism catch rate, Cluebot NG's false positive rate (and vandalism catch rate) have been reduced by about half. It's still about 3x as effective as the previous Cluebot, but will remain crippled for now until the developers and dataset contributors can bring it back up to full potential while maintaining the 1 in 1000 (0.1%) false positive rate mandated by critics. Sorry all.
Those wishing to help bring the bot back up to full potential can contribute to the dataset review interface. Crispy1989 (talk) 05:57, 29 November 2010 (UTC)