User talk:ClueBot Commons

This user is NOT a human

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.

ClueBot NG Links!

Report False Positives • Review Edits To Improve The ANN  • Frequently Asked Questions

Purpose of this Page

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.

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

ClueBot NG Needs You!

Damian has been working hard to bring the Report and Review interfaces back. We are now happy to announce that all is ready!

Report Interface: We need Wikipedians to assist with clearing the backlog of false positive reports

Review Interface: This has a direct effect on the bot and what it knows about vandalism or constructive edits. We need Wikipedians to review edits to effect how the bot should be trained.

Please reply under this message if you want to get involved - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 19:43, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

I'd love to get involved, as a new rollbacker, I wish to help out! Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 03:07, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

@Valorrr: I've added the relevant rights to you on both interfaces. You'll be able to review edits now - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 11:36, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

@Rich Smith I would be interested in helping out. I just happened to stumble onto this today, as ClueBot kept beating me to several rollbacks I thought I caught instantly! Nubzor [T][C] 20:19, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

@Nubzor: You need to login to either Report or Review first before I can give you the relevant rights, although a new update may have you the rights straight away - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 21:57, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

@Rich Smith Sorry about that. I didn't even try to log in earlier. I (believe) I was successful at logging into both. I will look into this more tomorrow before I start tinkering. Seems like something more useful/helpful than just patrolling RC. I always chuckle when I am positive a rollback will be successful, only to see it was ClueBot that beat me to it :) Nubzor [T][C] 00:44, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Quick question for you after taking a look--The Reviewer Interface & instructions provided there make perfect sense. But I'm not 100% certain on the Report Interface. Are we "defer[ing] to reviewer interface" regardless if it's a false positive or not, so that it can then be potentially incorporated into the dataset, either as vandalism or as constructive? Are we just filtering out bugged/invalid entries? Or am I misunderstanding. Nubzor [T][C] 02:18, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

@Nubzor: Essentially yes, if it's an edit that would be helpful for the bot to learn what is/isn't a FP, then defer. If the edit has been suppressed or deleted, then mark it as invalid - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 10:07, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

@Rich Smith Perfect, thank you! Nubzor [T][C] 14:40, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm relatively new to editing but I'd love to help out if I can.

Seantavius (talk) 21:40, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

I see that I've been granted access to the review interface. Thanks

Seantavius (talk) Seantavius (talk) 13:12, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Sign me up. I'm busy this month but hopefully I'll have more time to dedicate in the coming months —⁠k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 19:38, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

@K6ka: You should be able to just sign in, your Wiki rights will give you instant access :) - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 19:43, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Snazzy snazzy! —⁠k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 21:25, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

• @Rich Smith: I can help :-) —usernamekiran (talk) 21:16, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

  @Usernamekiran: Your Wiki rights will automatically give you access upon login - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 11:08, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

  Rich Smith, yes, I logged in, and reviewed some edits successfully. —usernamekiran (talk) 11:38, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Cluebot III wait

It says on the user page at User:Cluebot III that it should be ready within 48 hours. 48 hours have passed and it is now 61 hours since adding the template, see this edit for proof How long on average does it take for the first archive to happen? Theeverywhereperson (talk here) 10:25, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Looks like it worked :) SnowyRiver28 (talk) 07:41, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

How long it takes is pretty much directly related to how much work it has to do - as the pages are processed in sequence, if a large page has an update then it can take many many hours to complete that single page, for example Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball has over 92k pages with links that get checked. The bot gets restarted if no edits (progress) has been made in 24 hours, that may happen multiple times before it becomes unblocked. This is a known limitation of ClueBot III, some parts of which are described at https://github.com/cluebotng/cluebot3/issues. - Damian Zaremba ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:32, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

For the casual observer, we do track this and the metrics can be seen via e.g. https://cluebotng-monitoring.toolforge.org/d/d447b451-3b98-4a5e-aa17-4e41b857568a/cluebot-iii-contributions?orgId=1&from=now-7d&to=now&timezone=browser&refresh=5m - Damian Zaremba ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:35, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Max archive page size

Is there a recommended max bytes for an archive page? I notice 50k, 100k, 150k are common, but wouldn't it be better to have huge archive pages and therefore less pages necessary? SnowyRiver28 (talk) 07:44, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Please no. The larger pages get, the harder they are to load and navigate, especially on mobile devices. Archives exist so that they can be accessed on an occasional basis as required - otherwise we’d just delete talk page messages outright. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 07:46, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

I understand, although what's the theoretical maximum before it becomes annoying (not the MediaWiki-imposed page size maximum)? Especially considering archives are rarely accessed and are often just searched. SnowyRiver28 (talk) 07:51, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

In my experience anything above 200k gets difficult to navigate and load on some devices, which includes searching. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 07:54, 7 October 2025 (UTC)