User talk:ClueBot Commons

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.

Beware! This user's talk page is monitored by talk page watchers. Some of them even talk back.

Wondering why this was missed

[1]? Yngvadottir (talk) 04:03, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Probably because the user has 149 edits which is enough to be whitelisted entirely. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Ah thanks. That's a bit disturbing. Yngvadottir (talk) 02:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

"Disturbing" How so? —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 10:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)