Jump to content

User talk:ClueBot Commons/Archives/2012/January

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Edit by bot does not show up in Article

I am looking at this page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cyan&diff=prev&oldid=468698896

which shows a correct edit by Cluebot NG to revert vandalism. But the article text below, after the heading "Latest revision as of 02:06, 31 December 2011", shows the page as it existed before ClueBot NG did the revert.

In other words, the revert shows up only in the diffs at the top, but not in the text itself.

I viewed the same page while logged in and also while not logged in, and I see the same discrepancy either way.

Quite possibly I am misunderstanding something, but I don't think Wikipedia normally works like this.

Rahul (talk) 18:51, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Likewise with Zanzibar page. History shows vandalism ("zanzibaaa...) edited out, but it's still on the page.HowardJWilk (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:58, 1 January 2012 (UTC).

When you look at a diff page, it will always show both diffs, the one before ClueBot reverted and ClueBot's revision. When you click on the link to ClueBot's revision it will show the revert without any vandalism. I've just done that and finding the Cyan page with no vandalism.--5 albert square (talk) 21:02, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Checked the Zanzibar page as well, also no vandalism showing on that so ClueBot has reverted it correctly.
The only way you will get vandalism totally removed from a page is if one of us admins deletes the revision or removes it from the public archives, in which case the diff will look similar to this. However this is only done in exceptional circumstances and the vandalism on the Zanzibar and the Cyan page would not qualify for this.--5 albert square (talk) 21:14, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Please see again my original problem report, in which I wrote: "But the article text below, after the heading "Latest revision as of 02:06, 31 December 2011", shows the page as it existed before ClueBot NG did the revert."
On a diffs page, the LHS shows the revision before the change, and the RHS shows the revision after the change. And then, below all this, I usually see the original article as it exists AFTER the change. But in the current case, I am seeing the article as it existed BEFORE the change. I checked the Cyan page and I still see the vandalism present. I have uploaded a screenshot of the diffs page that I see (after adding some red rectangular highlights) to this URL:
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B9Aje_xcyQxxNTQxYmFiNjgtYWIwYi00ZjFiLTg2ZjQtMDg4ZTc3YmZlY2Qz
You may need to do a download to see it in full resolution. Note it's possible that the anomaly I see is not caused by the bot, but by some Wikimedia bug.
Rahul (talk) 22:22, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Update: I now see the article with the vandalism revert correctly done. So I think this likely means that what I saw before was caused by either a software bug or due to overly-aggressive caching. Since my browser was showing me a single page with inconsistent text within it, the problem likely lies at the Wikipedia end. Rahul (talk) 00:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Archive index filling up with nonsense

When archiving User_talk:This,_that_and_the_other/For_the_Common_Good, ClueBot III is filling up the index with an index of the entire wiki, à la Special:AllPages: User:ClueBot III/Indices/User_talk:This,_that_and_the_other/For_the_Common_Good. What's up? — This, that, and the other (talk) 00:13, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

That's what the api returns when you give it an invalid namespace. I have fixed it. The title should not be the munged version (with underscores), but the proper version (without underscores). The bot will fix it next time it runs. -- Cobi(t|c|b) 01:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for that. Since ClueBot III's user page is fully protected, do you think you could make mention of this in the documentation? A simple "Use spaces instead of underscores" would suffice, I would imagine. Thanks again for your assistance. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
User:ClueBot III/Documentation is not full-protected. -- Cobi(t|c|b) 07:10, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Review users

 Done - Damian Zaremba (talk • contribs) 16:42, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

False allegations

Your bot falsely accused me and spammed my talk page. How do I get the 'warning' out of my talkpage history?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ViezeRick&action=history
ViezeRick (talk) 12:20, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The bot did not accuse you of anything. It simply notified you that it thought that the edit appeared to be not constructive so it undid your edit. It also provided links to various policies that you should be aware of. It also let you know that if your edit was constructive, that you should redo your edit (undo the bot's edit). Furthermore, it did not spam your talk page. It posted one message to alert you to the fact that the bot had undone your edit.
History can be redacted, but is not typically done for such notifications, as they do no harm in the history. Even vandalism in article history is not typically redacted. -- Cobi(t|c|b) 13:01, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
The word 'spam' really gets misused a lot I've noticed. -- Ϫ 01:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

{{/censor}}

Corrections on This Is Ray Stevens

I just wanted to let you know that I happened to be the person with the identity of 173.189.190.92 I was making some necessary additions on the article for this particular album by Ray Stevens, as I truthfully have a copy of the LP of this album. I'm a true fan of Ray Stevens' music and I've been collecting LPs and CDs of his music since 2010. I'm sorry if I caused you any confusion, but I could've sworn that I had logged in before making the additions on the article. I assure you that everything that I've posted for it is honest and truthful. Thanks for your concern.

If you happen to know anyone who might be willing to help me out with the research of Ray Stevens' music, let me know. Thanks! Jpete (talk) 00:31, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

{{CB-FPWarn}} - Rich(MTCD)T|C|E-Mail 20:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Report interface down?

Having trouble connecting to report.cluebot.org. Keeps saying "The connection to the server was reset while the page was loading." Anyone else getting this? -- Ϫ 01:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not getting that error. →Στc. 01:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm getting "500 Server Error". – Wdchk (talk) 01:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm only getting errors on review.cluebot.cluenet.org. →Στc. 01:32, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I need to correct myself. "500 Server Error" is on cluebotreview.g.cluenet.org. Going directly to report.cluebot.cluenet.org works OK for me. review.cluebot.org and report.cluebot.org are hanging and timing out. – Wdchk (talk) 03:05, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Getting "500 Server Error" on the dataset interfaces but not on the reporting ones. --Ankit Maity Talk • contribs 07:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
cluebotreview.g.cluenet.org and review.cluebot.org are one of the same and are separate from report.cluebot.cluenet.org. The hanging on report could be mysql being slow, it is hosted on a beta setup at the end of the day. Both seem to be working fine for me anyway. - Damian Zaremba (talk • contribs) 15:31, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Hooray! It's again up.--Ankit Maity Talk • contribs 16:16, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Dataset experiencing "503 Over Quota".--Ankit Maity Talk • contribs 07:17, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

False positive

I tried to use the "Interface", but it does not work properly. The edit ID is 543689, It was a good faith edit, not vandalism. Axl ¤ [Talk] 02:06, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Please report it on the false positive page not here. In fact, please read edit notices. But as a friend I will do it for you.--Ankit Maity Talk • contribs 06:56, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Please give the MySQL ID, not the edit ID as you gave. For finding the MySQL ID see this page. Then, if you have not reported already reply the ID here.--Ankit Maity Talk • contribs 07:03, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Meh, I am not going to waste my time trying to work out which is the correct ID number and then start wrangling with the user-unfriendly Interface again. (Please feel free to pass on my comment to the operator of the bot if you think that they might care.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:14, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Made full-protection request

Autoconfirmed((like me) users testing too much on the run page for the heck of it.--Ankit Maity Talk • contribs 16:17, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Why would you want to test the run page? The run pages for any of the ClueBot's should only be changed if any one of them malfunction.
Anyway, no, ClueBot's run page won't be locked (unless of course Cobi decides he wants it that way). With the exception of Cobi, none of ClueBot's team are admins so if I fully lock the page then they wouldn't be able to access it either. How would it be of benefit to the ClueBots if we stopped all but one of ClueBot's team from accessing their run pages?--5 albert square (talk) 23:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:OP

We had some archive issues a while back and disabled the bot. Were looking for the requests to be archived when {{proxycheckstatus|closed}} appears in the section, hence the huge age number. It didn't follow that and archived sections without it. Could someone reinstate a good version at Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies/Requests please? (My mind just can't figure it out). -- DQ (t) (e) 01:26, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caruso_(song)

I was attempting to make some corrections to the English lyrics and add a paragraph of explanation in the main body of the posting. But the bot deemed them insignificant to which I must disagree. There is a saying of something being lost in translation and this cannot be more true than the English words that attempt to equate to the Italian phrases. Below are my suggestions that you can corroborate with others that you deem knowledgeable of the two languages.

Paragraph to be added in the body of explanation:

Voglio bene can also be understood as caring for another person. Hence, I care so much for you (ti voglio bene assai) has an added emphasis when that person is exceptionally close to your heart and the love that you have is of a Platonic nature.

Suggested lyrics to be changed in the chorus of the song:

I care so much for you; so very, very much you know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Se7ven (talk • contribs) 22:37, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

{{CB-FPWarn}} - Rich(MTCD)T|C|E-Mail 12:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Mercedes Benz Template cars 1980s - present

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Mercedes-Benz_vehicles

I've noticed that the template has not been updated to the year 2012, I justed wanted to report it to help Wikipedia to stay up-to-date.

I'm sorry if I've caused any trouble and/or forms of nuisance.

Yours Sincerely — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.122.5.123 (talk) 01:36, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello
First of all, ClueBot is not a human editor and is therefore unable to perform edits to pages. So it is unable to look at the link you gave it. However, I've looked at the link and from what I can see, the years appear in decades, so 2012 would appear under the 2010 section? Just as 1991 would appear under the 1990s section etc? However I may be totally wrong as I have no knowledge of the subject! If I've misunderstood it though and it is wrong, why not fix it yourself?--5 albert square (talk) 01:43, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not known with changing templates, I thought someone of this certain bot is know with the Mercedes pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.122.5.123 (talk) 11:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

tl

Is there a way to stop the bot from adding tl to the templates it archives from the archivenow list and yet archive on their tagging to the thread? --lTopGunl (talk) 16:12, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Stop reverting my edits!

Could someone PLEASE fix this fucking bot?! It is reverting perfectly appropriate changes to the page The Four Seasons (band). 69.123.125.243 (talk) 22:52, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

{{CB-FPWarn}} - 80.45.149.194 (talk) 09:52, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Had a look at your edits, you removed alot of content from the page that didn't be removed. If the bot didn't do it, a user would have. Mrlittleirish 15:12, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Not vandalism, but...

Not sure if I should report this. The bot reverted an edit that should have been reverted, but not because of vandalism. Should I report this or not?∞陣内Jinnai 21:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, if it's not vandalism then please report it to the false positives page--5 albert square (talk) 21:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Cluebot!

For all you do! Chrisrus (talk) 05:19, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

problem with dataset reviewing

I am reviewing changes in the dataset and find that it keeps putting up the same change to be reviewed. Should this be fixed? Eiler7 (talk) 11:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I just noticed this and have alerted Rich to it, hopefully he will respond soon.--5 albert square (talk) 22:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Urm, just checking, are you talking about the Review Interface or the Report Interface? - Rich(MTCD)T|C|E-Mail 22:15, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
I am reviewing changes. The problem may lie with the underlying dataset which may have multiple entries. I do not know. Also, is someone working on the stability issue? I have just checked and once again there are problems. Eiler7 (talk) 05:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Urm, I'll discuss with Damian why this might be happening. As for stability, the review interface runs under Cobi's Google Apps account and therefore is up to him to sort it out. - Rich(MTCD)T|C|E-Mail 10:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
The review interface is up and running now (500 server error has gone away). However, there is still the issue of presenting the the same change to be reviewed repeatedly. The one I keep seeing is diff 404142727. I've tried re-categorizing it, refreshing the page, and leaving it alone for a few days – but this diff just won't go away. Thanks. – Wdchk (talk) 12:29, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
The review interface is broken once again (503 Over Quota). Should I email cobi? If not, what should I do? Eiler7 (talk) 07:42, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Wait. 89.242.209.94 (talk) 07:57, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

About the Nicktoons Racing page

Will you please stop deleting the pages from Nicktoons Racing. What are you, jealous?! 98.66.8.149 (talk) 08:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I doubt that the bot experiences jealousy, being a bot and all. In fact, most of the reverts on that page have been made by humans. Please refer to the edit summaries, and if you'd like to discuss, Talk:Nicktoons Racing might be a good place. – Wdchk (talk) 18:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

false positive feature down

Dear bot, your false positives page seems to be down. So I use this page to tell you that this (810369) seems not to have been vandalism. Good luck with your results-improvement training tonight (and this the first time in ages I see you err, you're doing well!)! L.tak (talk) 15:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Yea, sorry about that, ClueNet had a few DNS issues which have now been resolved, you should be able to access the report interface again :) - Rich(MTCD)T|C|E-Mail 20:17, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Multi-level warning templates

It is my understanding that Cluebot issues multi-level vandalism warning templates by the following rules:

If there is no existing vandalism warning template diplayed in the current month on the users talk page, then the bot issues a level 1 warning template.
If there is an existing vandalism warning template for the current month, then the bot issues the next level up warning template.

An example of Cluebot executing this properly is here.

So why did Cluebot incorrectly do this and start two January 2012 sections instead of simply issuing a level 2 warning? I have seen the bot do this several times lately. When the bot does this, it is allowing vandals to escape or avoid repercussions. --Racerx11 (talk) 23:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

IRC down again

Just a notice that while CBNG seems to be up and editing; it seems the IRC feeds are down. Also, would you prefer that I continue to notify about these incidents, or are they generally known? Thanks, West.andrew.g (talk) 07:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Hey Andrew, Looking on IRC, it seems that the feed is working correctly, STikiQueuer however is not in the #cluebotng-spam channel. This might be your issue. Please continue to notify us if you find it down, either by posting here or e-mailing me and/or Damian - Rich(MTCD)T|C|E-Mail 22:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm working on something that's a bit more reliable - currently when the irc link drops the bot crashes, while it gets restarted it sometimes (quite a lot) doesn't drop the udp socket so when it tries to bind it fails and life is over. When I get time to finish it the bot will auto-reconnect to irc on drop and just stay on the irc socket - sorry for the current breakage. - Damian Zaremba (talk • contribs) 14:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Review edits for the dataset -bug report

  • skip always wants to prompt my decision with "Are you very sure" what is extremely irritating
  • it is irritating to review edits in multiple tabs (multiple instances of http://review.cluebot.cluenet.org/review.jsp) as it sometimes asks about the same edit (I tried this as loading time of new edit is significant)
  • "Are you very sure?" sometimes pops up in the different place than main window

Bulwersator (talk) 12:47, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

The interface only asks if you are /very/ sure if the edit in question doesn't seem to want to be skipped - skipping an edit is quite a big deal. The load time shouldn't be that large, all it's doing is loading in the edit via an iframe. - Damian Zaremba (talk • contribs) 14:54, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Dolphin!

                                               _______
                                         .,add88YYYYY88ba,
                                    .,adPP""'         `"Yba___,aaadYPPba,
                                .,adP""                .adP""""'     .,Y8b
                             ,adP"'                __  d"'     .,ad8P""Y8I
                          ,adP"'                  d88b I  .,adP""'   ,d8I'
                        ,adP"                     Y8P" ,adP"'    .,adP"'
                       adP"                        "' dP"     ,adP""'
                    ,adP"                             P    ,adP"'
            .,,aaaad8P"                                 ,adP"
       ,add88PP""""'                                  ,dP"
    ,adP""'                                         ,dP"
  ,8P"'                                            d8"
,dP'                                              dP'
`"Yba                                             Y8
  `"Yba                                           `8,
    `"Yba,                                         8I
       `"8b                                        8I
         dP                              __       ,8I
        ,8'                            ,d88b,    ,d8'
        dP                           ,dP'  `Yb, ,d8'
       ,8'                         ,dP"      `"Y8P'
       dP                        ,8P"
      ,8'                      ,dP"    Normand
      dP                     ,dP"      Veilleux
     ,8'                    ,8P'
     I8                    dP"
     IP                   dP'
     dI                  dP'
    ,8'                 dP'
    dI                 dP'
    8'                ,8'
    8                ,8I
    8                dP'
    8               ,8'
    8,              IP'
    Ib             ,dI
    `8             I8'
     8,            8I
     Yb            I8
     `8,           I8
      Yb           I8
      `Y,          I8
       Ib          I8,
       `Ib         `8I
        `8,         Yb
         I8,        `8,
         `Yb,        `8a
          `Yb         `Yb,
           I8          `Yb,
           dP            `Yb,
          ,8'              `Yb,
          dP                 `Yb,
         d88baaaad88ba,        `8,
            `"""'   `Y8ba,     ,dI
                       `""Y8baadP'
                            `""'  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.127.144.210 (talk) 01:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Adrian Edmondson

You have made a recent edit to a page about me. I have tried a number of channels to try and remove factual inaccuracies about me on this page, all to no avail. How do I do it? Do you know? Can you help? Where can I be verified as myself??? They're not huge lies, it's just the boring kind of stuff I'm bored of answering whenever I'm interviewed... Cheers, Adrian Edmondson — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrianedmondson (talk • contribs) 00:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Ade -- you should use email to info-en@wikipedia.org if you want your identity verified. This address and other info has been available on your user talk page for a little while. -R. S. Shaw (talk) 03:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello Ade and welcome. If you haven't already, I would also recommend reading Wikipedia:Autobiography before you make the edits about yourself. Just so you are aware and do not violate any policies unintentionally. Thanks.--Racerx11 (talk) 04:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Public holiday in USA

Why did you remove the importance of Good Friday and Easter holiday in the U.S.?! Ridiculous!--Maydin37622 (talk) 04:04, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Warning templates (again)

What the heck is going on here? [1] Again, Cluebot is not applying user warning template properly. Its been doing this for weeks now! Racerx11 (talk) 11:53, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if this belongs in the false positives page or not...

...but the bot archived a couple of discussions at Talk:Johnny Otis that were less than a day old. I reverted it, but you might want to check this out. [2] Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 00:25, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

it isn't vandalism

subj [3] 83.149.38.240 (talk) 10:59, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Please report a false positive at the Report Interface. It is easy and helps us track and correct false positives quicker! Thanks. – Wdchk (talk) 17:44, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

2011-12 United States network television schedule

Stop reverting my edits to the network schedule! They each except Who's Still Standing? have one episode left!!! 24.229.126.98 (talk) 23:11, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Please report a false positive at the Report Interface. It is easy and helps us track and correct false positives quicker! Thank you. – Wdchk (talk) 00:34, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

{{/censor}}

IRC feeds down

Bot seems to be active, but IRC never returned after the blackout. Thanks, West.andrew.g (talk) 06:00, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

IRC feeds down

Bot seems to be active, but IRC never returned after the blackout. Thanks, West.andrew.g (talk) 06:00, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Ray Hanania

Hello. Sorry to bother you, but I don't remember editing the article Ray Hanania recently.67.162.41.167 (talk) 04:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I think you are referring to a message left by ClueBot at User talk:67.162.41.167 on 5 January 2010. Since this was two years ago, the most likely explanation is that another person had been assigned your IP address at that time. If you didn't make this edit, please don't worry about the message. You might wish to consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further notices not intended for you personally. – Wdchk (talk) 04:50, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Way too many false positives

Praise should go on the praise page. Barnstars and other awards should go on the awards page.

So where do comments along the lines of this bot has way too many false positives based on weirdly vague criteria and should be switched off until these issues can be sorted out go? --87.79.209.140 (talk) 12:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

This page, or perhaps WP:BON. Though specific false positives should be reported to the User:ClueBot NG/FalsePositives page. -- Cobi(t|c|b) 13:01, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
There will always be some false positives, and the rate will always be around the same percentage of constructive edits. There's a good explanation at User:ClueBot NG#Information About False Positives. – Wdchk (talk) 02:43, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

multiple sections with the same name

I was looking at, [[4]] and I don't think the bot is really giving the best notices for these multiple offenders. Is this intentional? 018 (talk) 21:32, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Yep, it has been doing this alot for a while now. I have posted here twice recently about precisely this issue: [5] and [6]. Unfortunately, I have absolutely no explanation for you because no one, not a single person, replied at all to either of my posts. I don't know of better place to ask your question than at this page. So now, this is at least the third time this has been brought up. Please, is there anyone out there that knows anything about this?--Racerx11 (talk) 23:09, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
If you want to fix it, the template the bot puts at the bottom of the page is here:
As for "resetting", the bot finds the highest level warning in the last 3 days (due to the fact that IPs can change quickly) and then will add 1 to that level, and subst the template at the bottom of the page. You can see this specific question answered several times in the archives. -- Cobi(t|c|b) 00:58, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. I would have never guessed the reset time to be only 3 days. Seems quick. In theory, a vandal could strike once every three days and never get reported as long as the edits trip cluebot reverts. Anyway, sorry, I thought this was a recent glitch, I should have checked the archives. Thanks again.--Racerx11 (talk) 03:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
So there is no plan to fix the bot? Obviously it needs to detect if there is a section named *year* *month* and use that section if there is. Otherwise, it's making lots of junk edits. 018 (talk) 16:46, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Takis Fotopoulos Page

Thank you ClueBot for reverting Takis' page from the vandalism that has been ongoing. john sargis (talk)9:00, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Archiving at Talk:Johnny Otis

I really need someone to chime in on this. I posted a message about this before, but apparently the bots really have it out for me.

About a week and a half ago, ClueBot III erroneously created this archive with discussions that were less than a day old. From what I gather from this talk page, it's been happening on other articles too. Until it's fixed I have no choice but to watch the article and undo the edits that this bot makes so that these talk pages can actually function the way they were intended to. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 02:54, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Solved. Disregard. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 08:51, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Archiving mess

Resolved

I just fixed this mess in the archives for Talk:Iran–U.S. RQ-170 incident. I'm not entirely sure what caused this, but ClueBot for some reason put the archivethis template in an archive page, which led to that archive being archived, and so on until I deleted the seventh iteration. The page in question got moved around a bit in December, so that may have been an issue.

I'm not sure I fixed the root cause, and whether the root cause is GIGO or a bug in the bot's code. In any case, you should put in a check so that it doesn't archive archives. Ucucha (talk) 21:35, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, there may be a problem in line 249 of User:ClueBot III/Source, which is supposed to revert the archive page if the bot successfully archived some sections, then failed to remove them from the main talk page. However, the bot then places $rv2[0]['*'] in the archive page, which I think is the text of the main talk page. Instead, the bot should save the original text of the archive page in some variable (it looks like it currently doesn't do that) and revert to that. Ucucha (talk) 21:48, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
There are perfectly legitimate times for the bot to archive archives and thus the check is not in there. For example, on some notice boards, like WP:OP, reports go through four stages. First it is reported to the unverified section. When it gets verified, the bot moves (archives) it to the verified section, once an admin has taken action on it, the bot moves (archives) it to a list of recently action'd reports, then those are archived to relevant archives depending on the resolution.
The issue you experienced primarily happens when the bot archives a section that has archive template in it, which enables archiving on the archive, etc. -- Cobi(t|c|b) 14:09, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
OK, there may be cases where archiving archives is legitimate. However, I don't think your reasoning explains the problems on this page; I don't see any archive templates in the archived sections, and it certainly copied the entire text of the main talk page into an archive. Ucucha (talk) 15:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Ahh, I see the problem now. Will get it fixed ASAP. Thanks. -- Cobi(t|c|b) 17:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done - Rich(MTCD)T|C|E-Mail 17:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Systematic vandalism

In spite of the last warning gave by bot, which states that if the user 131.165.161.114 (talk) vandalized Wikipedia again, he would be blocked from editing without further notice, this didn't happen yet. Unfortunately this user is pretty much active, as anyone can see he yesterday destroyed this article. Till here for some peculiar reason he was not blocked yet, could you please check what's going on? Thanks, Academictask (talk) 14:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

It does not seem to me that this vandal is particularly active, but he was not cured successfully for nearly two years. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:15, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
@Academictask: ClueBot is not an admin therefore cannot block users itself, it will however report users to WP:AIV if the warnings get to high - Rich(MTCD)T|C|E-Mail 17:33, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
@Incnis Mrsi: Urm, that's da.wiki, ClueBot does not run there. - Rich(MTCD)T|C|E-Mail 17:33, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Archive disaster Talk:Night of the Living Dead

Resolved

Over at Talk:Night of the Living Dead I was cleaning up some and noticed that CluebotIII went haywire because an editor messed up settings or placement. CBIII picked up its own code from the main talk index and placed it in archive 2. From there things have gone badly since about September 2010 in that CBIII has been creating archives like:

From those I assume that it's possibly going on infinitely but I stopped looking after the fourth one. I restored the first archive 2 page and removed the bot code so at least the genuine archives are ok there. Brad (talk) 03:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Should I report this somewhere else? Brad (talk) 22:36, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
The main issue is that the archive setup was put in a section. So, when it was archived, it caused the archive to be archived, and so on. I fixed the template, so it won't continue recursively archiving. -- Cobi(t|c|b) 00:54, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
It looks like some of the mess still needs to be deleted. I'm not doing it myself because I don't have time to verify that everything ended up in the right place. Ucucha (talk) 21:58, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done - Fixed with below message -- Rich(MTCD)T|C|E-Mail 17:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Done? The nested archives are still there. Barsoomian (talk) 18:59, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ClueBot_Commons/Archives/2012/January&oldid=1145814709"