User talk:Cyberpower678/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

Senior Editor II

A cup of tea for you!

I have always appreciated the hard work and enthusiasm you invest in Wikipedia; don't get despondent. When we Brits get stressed, the standard suggestion in to "Have a nice cup of tea" - I know it's a bit cliché but I get through about 10 mugs a day! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:43, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I may not be British, but I'm a huge fan of tea. As a matter of fact I had to stop drinking it since the caffeine was hyping me up. :p I don't drink coffee. I've always been a tea guy. My favorite is peppermint and green tea. :-)—cyberpower _Online^{Trick or Treat} 00:45, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not a brit either but I'm a huge fan of tea, specifically the chai variety. Even went so far as to make a userbox for it. User:Dainomite/userboxes/Chai tea. —  dainomite   02:02, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

You do know that chai translates to tea right? So you are saying tea tea. :p—cyberpower _Online^{Trick or Treat} 14:03, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Yep, it's a terrible habit. Just like being a member of the U.S. military and saying "cac card" when cac stands for Common Access Card. I can't help it even though I know it's wrong. If you ask someone where their cac is they get offended. However, saying "cac card" despite being wrong is acceptable. —  dainomite   02:33, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) That's one of my (many little) pet peeves, just like "Sahara desert" and "ATM machine"... grrr!! Zad68 14:07, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

@Zad68: Or PIN number, HIV virus or RAM memory. —  dainomite   02:38, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

DVD CD or DVD disc or CD disc. :p—cyberpower _Online^{Trick or Treat} 13:46, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Cyberbot I on WP:RFP

I see that Cyberbot I is archiving WP:RFP.

First of all, that task is not listed on User:cyberbot I. I think it should be there.

Also, I see the bot removes any discussion that is marked with {{RFPP}}. I think that sections that are marked with the RFPP template should remain on the page for 24 hours for reference. It has happened to me upon occasion that 1. a request I made was removed before I had the opportunity to see the discussion and subsequent decision, or even 2. I had to manually return a request from the archive to continue a discussion, which was in my opinion decided upon in haste. I will open a discussion on the subject at WT:RFP. Would it technically be possible to have the bot archive discussions only after 24 hours they were marked with the RFPP template?

I'd appreciate your reaction to these two concerns. Debresser (talk) 01:42, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Happy Halloween!

Trick or Treat! Happy Halloween Cyberpower678! I hope you have a great day and remember to be safe if you go trick-or-treating tonight with friends, family or loved ones. Happy Halloween! —  dainomite   15:14, 31 October 2013 (UTC) Help spread Wikilove by adding {{subst:User:Dainomite/HappyHalloween}} to other users' talk pages whether they be friends, acquaintances or random folks.

Cyberbot I

Hi. I understand you're away for a while, but if you could investigate the following upon your return, it'd be much appreciated.

• User:Cyberpower678/RfX Report is listing Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Lugia2453 as "Pending closure..."
• I attempted to update this to "On hold...", as a result of a point raised at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Lugia2453/Bureaucrat discussion#More input
• I don't know whether this automated update was effectively a revert or simply a run-of-the-mill timed update

I now see that perhaps I should have tried messing with the timestamp & sig parameters too. But I don't think that this is important/problematic enough to necessarily be further investigated or tampered with now (not least because the RfA will surely be closed in the foreseeable future). In any case, what do you think about all this? Cheers. -- Trevj (talk) 09:50, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Cyberpower678. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is PC Bot disabled.
Message added 09:41, 9 November 2013 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

As per your request to email you with issues. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 09:41, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Cyberbot I on WP:RFP

I see that Cyberbot I is archiving WP:RFP.

First of all, that task is not listed on User:cyberbot I. I think it should be there.

Also, I see the bot removes any discussion that is marked with {{RFPP}}. I think that sections that are marked with the RFPP template should remain on the page for 24 hours for reference. It has happened to me upon occasion that 1. a request I made was removed before I had the opportunity to see the discussion and subsequent decision, or even 2. I had to manually return a request from the archive to continue a discussion, which was in my opinion decided upon in haste. I will open a discussion on the subject at WT:RFP. Would it technically be possible to have the bot archive discussions only after 24 hours they were marked with the RFPP template?

I'd appreciate your reaction to these two concerns. Debresser (talk) 20:46, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I had a look at that discussion, looks like there really isn't a consensus for an appropriate time period. There does seem to be consensus that the page gets too cluttered too quickly so the requests are transferred to the rolling archive.—cyberpower ^Chat_{Temporarily Online} 15:00, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that is my impression of the discussion as well. Although two editors have mentioned that 3 hours would be okay. Would you be able to fine-tune that, so that the bot will not come to the page too soon after a previous visit? What about the first point? Debresser (talk) 17:26, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

They are all being converted to a new language. Changes will have to wait till then.—cyberpower ^Chat_Absent 05:30, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

No problem. But I meant, what abut listing this clerking function on User:cyberbot I together with the other functions already listed there. Debresser (talk) 11:02, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Need to access to the tools hosted at http://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/

Hi, I want to use the tools hosted at http://toolserver.org/~tparis. i am going to start a project and i think if i can modify those tools a little then it may serve my purpose. I talked with the User:TParis (User_talk:TParis#Source_code_available_for_tools_hosted_at_http:.2F.2Ftoolserver.org.2F.7Etparis_.3F). He informed me that now those tools can be used form the wmflabs. So I would like to get the access of the source code and want to know the ways to reuse it. --Nasir Khan Saikat (talk) 17:30, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I think it might be best to expand on the current tools.--v/r - TP 18:09, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Of course it would be the best to improve/add new features to the existing tools and i also want to do so. This tool is live and i have to make sure that the new features are working properly, how can i do that?--Nasir Khan Saikat (talk) 09:23, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm confused. Do you want to make new tools, or expand the existing ones?—cyberpower ^Chat_{Temporarily Online} 15:05, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Cyberbot I error at Claudius Xenophon

I have just undone an edit made by Cyberbot I at Claudius Xenophon - the edit concerned seems to have mistakenly reinstated an AfD template when the discussion had been closed as Keep a few minutes earlier and also to have removed the entire content of the article. This obviously shouldn't have happened - could you please what went wrong, so it doesn't happen again? PWilkinson (talk) 09:58, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

• Friendly heads up, Cyberbot seems to have done it again here. I tried to see if I had perhaps left a tag somewhere, but I couldn't see anything. (I think the bot wants you off wikibreak.) — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 22:45, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Cyberbot I

Hi. I understand you're away for a while, but if you could investigate the following upon your return, it'd be much appreciated.

• User:Cyberpower678/RfX Report is listing Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Lugia2453 as "Pending closure..."
• I attempted to update this to "On hold...", as a result of a point raised at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Lugia2453/Bureaucrat discussion#More input
• I don't know whether this automated update was effectively a revert or simply a run-of-the-mill timed update

I now see that perhaps I should have tried messing with the timestamp & sig parameters too. But I don't think that this is important/problematic enough to necessarily be further investigated or tampered with now (not least because the RfA will surely be closed in the foreseeable future). In any case, what do you think about all this? Cheers. -- Trevj (talk) 09:50, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

It's not a sophisticated script. It keeps displaying that RfA as pending closure as long as it is past it's close time and transcluded to the main page.—cyberpower ^Chat_{Temporarily Online} 15:02, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I was wondering at the time whether it could show "on hold" when that is the case, because Colonel Warden apparently !voted as a result of the "pending closure" display. -- Trevj (talk) 15:39, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll work on an update.—cyberpower ^Chat_{Temporarily Online} 16:55, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. That'd be great! -- Trevj (talk) 07:20, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Cyberbot's AfD report

Hey there, I see you recently migrated the AfD report to Cyberbot's userspace after a week or so of inactivity...but it seems to have gone out of commission again. I'm rather concerned because monitoring that is the only thing I do on the 'pedia nowadays, so I feel that there's a giant void in my life now with it gone . If it's not down because you're on wikibreak or something like that, could you take a look when you get back? Thanks a lot! Ansh666 08:56, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay, it's back up (thanks). Right now, though, it's updating the page every time it sees that there's more than 0, even if it's the exact same (it's just changing the timestamp), instead of every time the report changed, which is how it behaved beforehand. Would changing it back be hard at all? Thanks, Ansh666 20:32, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I've been converting the original script to PHP and have been tinkering with it to get it to work right. Everything should be fine now.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 00:39, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Seems to have done the opposite, now it's updating every three minutes regardless! My watchlist is going crazy! No sweat, though, you probably have more important things to get to first. Thanks, Ansh666 09:31, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Ahouls be fixed now.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 19:11, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Yay, thanks! Ansh666 21:49, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm Back to wreak havoc on Wikipedia. Mwuahahaha.

I'm back to torture you guys. >:D Seriously though, I'm back on Wikipedia with reduced activity.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 00:40, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jinkinson

Hi Cyberpower. :) I just noticed that Cyberbot I doesn't seem to have detected Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jinkinson. Any idea why? — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:53, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Should be working now.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 13:15, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

File:PC Padlock Screenshot in Monobook.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:PC Padlock Screenshot in Monobook.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 20:34, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit counter message

Hi, I see at TParis' user talk that you are the point person for this and the other X tools. I'm a little puzzled why you guys are urging us all to torment Coren, who is now pointing us back to you guys. Does Coren have some superpower that enables him to make WMF address problems faster or otherwise turn its might to what we want? Do tell. Otherwise, maybe it would be better to remove that bit of the notice. Also, I hope we can have our pi charts back soon, I miss them. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:31, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Was also wondering what had happened to the pie chart. Displays ok on the old tool server version but on labs you just get a question mark. Also hope you are back to proper editing soon after your break.Blethering Scot 00:05, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

You can likely thank JackPotte for that. I have no idea what broke, but I'm looking for my backup copy.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 00:38, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I have fixed the issue.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 04:20, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. (Why I typed pi I have no idea.) Yngvadottir (talk) 08:18, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Cyberbot I not updating tally

User:Cyberpower678/Tally suddenly stopped being updated earlier today, meaning the RfA won't have its numbers correct on the page. Do you know what's causing this and can it be fixed? Thank you, —Soap— 01:13, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Some of SoxBot's original scripts seem to be getting unstable. Cratstats, for some reason can't run for 1 day without crashing. I've restarted them.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 01:36, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Cyberbot troubles

Cyberbot I isn't processing old requests currently at WP:RFPP, I don't know if it's due to changes with the headers there but it's not been clerked since the switch. Would have thought someone would have at least checked in with you to make sure that you knew of these changes in case the affected the script but nobody did sadly. tutterMouse (talk) 17:49, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Being alerted of these changes is helpful. Those header changes is what's causing the bot to break. I'll put in a patch.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 18:50, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually the way the bot is currently written, the bot needs to be modified significantly because what goes underneath those new headers have changed.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 18:54, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I have made the necessary modifications.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 19:04, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for resolving the issue in short order. tutterMouse (talk) 22:07, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I see you've moved this script over to Peachy from the old pywiki base, good to see. Not so happy to see that it's only retaining one day of archives now instead of seven which I guess is minor as is a misspelling of "old" as "olf", felt you might be interested to know. tutterMouse (talk) 14:13, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

That archive error was a bug when converting it. It should now retain the 7 days. Rather than restore it, I thought I'd just let it rebuild itself over time. I must say, the original script was riddled with bugs, inconsistencies, and redundant lines of code.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 14:18, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Is it supposed to be archiving the same content over and over again? Right now the archive is barely readable as the same requests are continually being added to the archive making it a difficult page to read. I'll clip out the duplicates but I don't like how it's a bit buggy right now, I trust you'll fix it so don't worry about it. tutterMouse (talk) 14:20, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

No it's not. It looks like I may have multiple instances of the same program running, all trying to do the same thing with the same data. Which means they're all dumping the same things into the archive at different times. I'll have to kill them all.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 14:24, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Definitely more than one instance. I've reduced it to one and removed the final bugs from the script.

Hold on. The problem wasn't only more than one instance but an edit conflict on the main page. When the bot detects an edit conflict, the edit will not go through. It would need to be resubmitted, with a new timestamp. But since the archive page doesn't edit conflict, the bot keeps dumping stuff in there as long as it keeps edit conflicting on the main page. I will put in patch to let it work around edit conflicts.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 22:04, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Category:Requests for unblock

The bot that updates the summary at Category:Requests for unblock has been down for a week. My presumption is that this is a low priority request. Kuru (talk) 12:22, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

It's python with it's oh so awesome pywikipedia framework, which seems pretty crappy compared to peachy. I'm working on converting the scripts.—cyberpower ^Chat_{Limited Access} 12:33, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I've finished converting the script. It should remain operational from here on out.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 19:41, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

You've tempted fate. Kuru (talk) 02:41, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Fate and I struck a deal. Fate is allowing me to successfully let my bots be immortal, provided labs continues to live. :p—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 03:02, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Possible bug regarding the global blacklisting of a link

Hello. I think I may have found a bug on Georgia font.

Reference #5 on that page links to a legitimate and appropriate source — the Ascender Corporation's website — however, it is being recognized as part of the global blacklist.

The template states, "Triggered by \bascendercorp\.com\b on the global blacklist," which points to a separate but visually similar domain.

Please inform me of any actions you may take; also, I'm open to discussion on the topic.

Thank you.

Sincerely, ~zziccardi (talk) 15:48, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually that domain is an identical match to the regex fragement, you just wrote. So no bug here.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 22:06, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

My mistake. Admittedly, I'm not particularly familiar with regex — I don't typically venture to this part of the woods, if you will. The "b" following the backslash must have thrown me off. I'd like to find out why the site's been blacklisted, as there isn't any noticeable spam or anything of that sort, but no comment was left beside the entry in the blacklist. If you don't mind, could you point me in the right direction? Thanks, again. ~zziccardi (talk) 23:30, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Have a look at m:Talk:Spam_blacklist/Archives/2010-06#ascenderfonts.com. Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:42, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. ~zziccardi (talk) 00:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

RFA tally task

Hi Cyberpower, probably a silly question but I've noticed that the bot is one vote behind the total for my RFA and has been either the whole way through or just recently (I only noticed it last night). I was wondering if this is what the bot is supposed to do, or if it's just missed a vote somehow. It's not urgent, there are still another 4 or 5 days to go. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:24, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Found it, the bot (and X!'s tool) aren't counting User:Coffee's vote. Maybe because the vote is a template, so the bot isn't recognising the hash? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:28, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

The bot parses the wikitext, looking for active # symbols. Since the template doesn't have that, it's ignoring coffee's vote. I substed the template into place. It's counting correctly now.—cyberpower _Online^{Happy Thanksgiving} 14:37, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I thought that's what it was when I found the transclusion, but I just wanted to check (plus I think changing someone's vote in one's RFA even for something like this is a no-no). Thanks for taking a look and fixing, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:52, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Not really a no-no in this case. All I did was substitute the template. It didn't change the outcome, with the exception that the bot now see's Coffee. It probably would be an excuse for someone to oppose in your case, so it was probably better that you didn't do it. :-)—cyberpower _Online^{Happy Thanksgiving} 14:55, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Book:Lady Gaga

Hello Cyberpower. The bot which runs on Book reports is facing an error while updating the book report for the above one. It is updating one article—Cheek to Cheek—as unassessed, when it has been assessed by the relevant project. Can you please check it out? —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 07:28, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Looks like Headbomb fixed it. It's running fine now. Must've some sort of Unicode character throwing the bot off.—cyberpower _Online^{Merry Christmas} 00:38, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

cyberbot I question

I just wanted to let you know that User:cyberbot I seems to be a little bit quick on the trigger. I created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MAGIC! about ten minutes ago, but Cyberbot started stepping on my toes almost immediately while I was still in the process of completing the final step: if you look at the edit histories on the discussion page itself and the December 1 pagelog, Cyberbot stepped in literally just one minute after I was done even composing the AFD nomination in the first place. In fact, I got an edit conflict as I was trying to add it to the pagelog — and Cyberbot's edit caused the conflict.

I agree that there's value in having a bot to do the task for stranded AFD nominations — however, it shouldn't be stepping in so fast that it's actively interfering with a human editor who's still in the middle of following the nomination process. Could you perhaps dial the bot's reflexes down just a tad? Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 19:01, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually the bot runs every 15 minutes. You just happened to be working while the bot was running.—cyberpower _Online^{Merry Christmas} 19:04, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, it's still not something that should be happening at all. Is there any way that it could be programmed to withhold acting on a page, and maybe come back to check again later if necessary, if a page was only just created two or three minutes ago? Bearcat (talk) 19:17, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I'll work on something.—cyberpower _Online^{Merry Christmas} 19:29, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

• I'm here to complain about the same; one sohlud get a reasonable amount of time to complete the AfD nomination process. The bot jumps in often after just one minute.--FoxyOrange (talk) 16:41, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

   Fixed per the link.—cyberpower _Online^{Merry Christmas} 17:31, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

PC protection tagging

Hi Cyberpower, are you able to have your bot add the expiry=date to {{pp-pc1}} if the page is protected with an expiry date, that is this rather than this? Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:08, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Sure.—cyberpower _Online^{Merry Christmas} 12:31, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Apparently incorrect blacklisting

Just got a notice about a blacklisted URL at Nathan "Ned" Miller with this edit. "otrcat.com/old-time-radio-theme-music-p.html" does not appear to be related to \botrcat\.com (except perhaps "guilt by alphabet"). They are two different website/entities so far as I can tell. Any help muchly appreciated with this. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 22:08, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

That regex fragment is a perfect match to the website mentioned.—cyberpower _Online^{Merry Christmas} 22:19, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) It seems to be a common mistake that only the \ is considered a special character and that the b is part of the pattern, rather than them both being one combined special character. I've also seen this at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#eHow.com. Do you think it would be helpful to have an FAQ to explain this somewhere? Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:25, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Probably.—cyberpower _Online^{Merry Christmas} 22:28, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

So, I admit my confusion... is '"otrcat.com" (which, by the way, stands for Old Time Radio) still blacklisted? Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 00:04, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Would you please shut down the blacklist function pending further discussion? Please work with the community on this. Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 00:24, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikidemon, I have made modifications to the bot. You can hide the tag by adding "|invisible=true".—cyberpower _Online^{Merry Christmas} 00:29, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I'll update a few edits I just made then. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:40, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Tokelau and .tk

While I am sure the domain is appropriate for blacklisting anywhere else, for the articles Tokelau and .tk it seems relevant. The service is a significant part of Tokelau's economy.-gadfium 00:22, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

You'll need to request whitelisting. You can do so here.—cyberpower _Online^{Merry Christmas} 00:24, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I've made the request.-gadfium 00:54, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Cyberbot II committed a grammatical error!

In its messages, could "request it's removal" be changed to "request its removal"? —rybec 03:33, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Sure.—cyberpower _{Limited Access}^{Merry Christmas} 12:22, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done—cyberpower _Online^{Merry Christmas} 15:35, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

For your trouble free bots. Some people might run from glitch to glitch, making excuses and blaming other code. Some examples may be:

Unlikely, as it is exactly the same as MediaWiki's. Ahh. Now I see the bug. The bot is seeing the link in it's own tag, and is flagging itself. Not quite sure how to fix that.

Wikidemon, I have made modifications to the bot. You can hide the tag by adding "|invisible=true". are you able to have your bot add the expiry=date to if the page is protected with an expiry date, that is this rather than this I'm here to complain about the same;

The bot which runs on Book reports is facing an error Not really a no-no in this case. All I did was substitute the template. It didn't change the outcome, with the exception that the bot now see's Coffee. It probably would be an excuse for someone to oppose in your case, so it was probably better that you didn't do it.

Cyberbot I isn't processing old requests currently at WP:RFPP,… rather than restore it, I thought I'd just let it rebuild itself over time. I must say, the original script was riddled with bugs, inconsistencies, and redundant lines of code.

Hold on. The problem wasn't only more than one instance but an edit conflict on the main page. When the bot detects an edit conflict, the edit will not go through.

This talk page just goes on and on and…Oh, never mind, I think I see the problem.A'nother'un (talk) 19:59, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome.—cyberpower _Offline^{Merry Christmas} 20:11, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Cyberbot II blacklist notices

I've now seen one of your blacklist notices. I found it confusing, and I'm an experienced editor.

It took a bunch of digging to find out why it was on the blacklist, so I could judge whether to remove it or not. A link off to the reason for blacklisting (at least that one's what I dug up, perhaps some mention was made when it went onto the actual blacklist, as opposed to the request?) - and any associated discussion - would have made life much easier. Josh Parris 04:32, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry. The bot cannot find the discussion associated to its blacklisting. That's a technical impossibility as far as I know.—cyberpower _Offline^{Merry Christmas} 12:49, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Re: Template:Blacklisted-links

I checked my edit, and it already does match the other amboxes without your stylesheet override. I have a personal monobook.css that colors all amboxes on my computer green. I don't appreciate having it overridden. Please come up with a fix that doesn't override my stylesheet. --  Denelson83  06:15, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

It turned yellow when you removed it. Lemme look.—cyberpower _Offline^{Merry Christmas} 12:50, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Further problems, no answers

So, yet more issues (see editor experience above) and no answers to my questions here [1]. Maybe this needs to go back to WP:ANI for a third time? For the final time, will you please shut this down, discuss all the issues on the BOT talk page and cease trying to fix issues on the run when there is no consensus for it and it appears to be creating further problems for our editors? Leaky Caldron 10:23, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Leaky, I have ceased to respond to your comments, because you are attempting to find problems that aren't there, claiming consensus consensus when there isn't one, and have been calling me a half-arsed botop. That notice above was AGAIN, NOT an issue regarding the bot. The bot has NOT malfunctioned. But to answer your questions, it's tagging both because consensus is divided where the bot should tag it. So I placed both as a compromise, where the tag can be suppressed by the invisible parameter. It was the best solution to a problem that had no concise answer, and it satisfied Wikidemon, who I recall completely opposed the bot. So opinions change. The ANI discussions already had many defending the bot before the changes.—cyberpower _Offline^{Merry Christmas} 12:58, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

The bot isn't the problem it's the blacklist. The bot is important and just because we've become accustomed to allowing certain black links does not mean its correct.Blethering Scot 13:03, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Is anyone helping you with this? It does appear that you are simply following a methodology of fixing issues in flight and if at first it doesn't succeed, try something else. The reason I ask is that you have been requested (not just by me) to work co-operatively with other BOT practitioners. This recent discussion, where 2 other experienced BOT operators raised direct concern about your modus operandi, [2] does not instil confidence that you can get to grips with the issues that are continuing to present. As for your interpretation of consensus, you have decided the consensus purely in favour of enabling you to continue the work. You are not the best person to determine consensus in a case like this. Leaky Caldron 13:57, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't mind receiving help. The code is public. A few have offered to help but have done nothing. I am very capable of maintaining my own code.—cyberpower _Online^{Merry Christmas} 14:02, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect BOT algorithm?

Please see Talk:NORM-UK where your bot has identified a text pattern but failed to identify that particular URLS have appeared on the main whitelist for some time. The algorithm is, surely, incorrect? Fiddle Faddle 10:24, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Unlikely, as it is exactly the same as MediaWiki's.—cyberpower _{Limited Access}^{Merry Christmas} 12:21, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

And because I wasn't able to add that link to my sandbox, it is still blacklist an therefore the bot is working correctly.—cyberpower _{Limited Access}^{Merry Christmas} 12:26, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

The thing is, the only link in that article is to http://www.norm.uk/index.html, but your bot appears to have flagged a problem. Or am I barking up the wrong tree? Fiddle Faddle 12:32, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Ahh. Now I see the bug. The bot is seeing the link in it's own tag, and is flagging itself. Not quite sure how to fix that. In these cases, just remove the tag and it should fix itself.—cyberpower _{Limited Access}^{Merry Christmas} 12:41, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Obvious when one sees it. Thanks. One could do a check or own tagness, of course? Fiddle Faddle 12:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Yesterday you removed the tag on the article. I removed the message on the talk page since the issue was resolved as an anomaly. Today your bot has, very sweetly, reapplied the message to the talk page. I wonder if you would go the extra mile and take another look, please? It's a very polite bot, but, unless you can show me that what it has done is valid, it is not 100% accurate in the way it is working. Fiddle Faddle 13:11, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes. I see. I'm looking into it. I'm sorry for the trouble. You should be able to safely remove the tag now. The bot will post a resolved notice on that thread, if you don't.—cyberpower _Offline^{Merry Christmas} 13:13, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Please do not be concerned. Life is not bug free. It is how we handle bugs that shows what we are made of, not their existence. Fiddle Faddle 13:19, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Once the bot does see it's no longer an issue, it will do something like this. This is probably because of the amount of time it takes to process the articles. A lot of things change in between them. I have a solution that I am going to implement in just a moment.—cyberpower _Offline^{Merry Christmas} 13:25, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I've loaded a patch into place. It should drastically reduce the amount of outdated to be placed. It should also no longer catch its own tags holding the links.—cyberpower _Online^{Merry Christmas} 15:34, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Do you ever wonder why you created a useful bot when so many people misunderstand what this whole area is about? Thanks for loading the patch. Fiddle Faddle 22:45, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Everything new will have its issues. The OBoD removal also stirred up a lot, but now everybody has practically gotten used to it.—cyberpower _Online^{Merry Christmas} 00:07, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Cyberbot II

You claim the bot is exclusion compliant, but it appears to not be listening to the template (diff 1 diff 2) If this happens again, I am going to stop it from making these sorts of edits. --Guerillero | My Talk 18:11, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

You need to add invisible=true to the template. It's so the page is placed in a category. I have done so for you.—cyberpower _{Limited Access}^{Merry Christmas} 18:29, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this is pointless. The GNAA's website will NEVER be added to the white list; it is used for abuse far too much. There is no possible way to remove the tag except by removing the WP:EL compliant link; there is no possible way to finish this clean up task. The bot should listen to the wishes of the people who watch the article via {{Bots|Deny=}} or {{NoBots}} instead of making everyone comply with it. There is a decently long tradition that cleanup tags shouldn't be restored if they were removed by an uninvolved editor. --Guerillero | My Talk 18:38, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Guerillero, you didn't capitalize the "C" in cyberbot. Legoktm (talk) 18:40, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

So you feel that link's that are on the blacklist for a good reason should be allowed to stand without virtually any questioning or going through the proper whitelist. That doesn't seem right to me at all. We have a blacklist & whitelist for good reasons.Blethering Scot 18:43, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Cyberbot II has a bug regarding nobots. For some reason it's not acknowledging it's presence. Adding the invisible parameter to the tag will hide the tag, and leave it in a category. BTW, they will add the GNAA website to this whitelist if you provide them with a specific link.—cyberpower _{Limited Access}^{Merry Christmas} 18:44, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

The issue is that, outside of this one page, links to the site are only for harassment/trolling. I went looking through the spam blacklist/whitelist and there isn't a way to do an except on page foo like there is for the image blacklist. Because of this, the group would start using the one link to their site to bombard the 'pedia. Unlike run-of-the-mill spammers, the GNAA knows, and uses, most every trick in the book. There is no way to win. --Guerillero | My Talk 19:21, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Whilst I'm not agreeing with Guerillero at all because he should go through the proper processes, it might be worth switching the bot off extremely temporarily in order to fix the bots deny.Blethering Scot 18:49, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Very well. I will shut the bot down pending repair to nobots.—cyberpower _{Limited Access}^{Merry Christmas} 18:52, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Just think it will save you a lot of grief and drama over something that you'll probably be able to fix quickly.Blethering Scot 18:55, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

The problem is something deeper. Something I'm not seeing.—cyberpower _{Limited Access}^{Merry Christmas} 18:59, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• Actually there is. Aside from the invisible tag, WP:Spam-exceptions can be used to tell the bot to ignore the page. It's much more effective than nobots. Just follow the formatting on the page to add your page to the list. P.S. I voted for you. :-)—cyberpower _Offline^{Merry Christmas} 19:47, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

@Guerillero: - if a site gets abused, it gets blacklisted. Then specific links could be whitelisted for specific uses (generally that is explicitly stated in the whitelisting requests - 'only for this page'). If that enables further abuse, which you seem to expect here, then that should be met with the hardest possible measures. E.g. using XLinkBot in hard-override / 1-strike-and-you-are-out mode could be an option there, another option could be an edit filter. I still think that there is a task higher up in Wikipedia (Foundation) to help in cases of extreme advocacy, attacking that problem at the root in stead of Wikipedians doing all they can to 'mitigate' the problem by blocking more and more socks, and other 'anti-spam measures' (I hope you are aware that, even with the whole site blacklisted, that there are ways around which I will not divulge here, against weathered spammers and paid advocates we do not stand a chance unless the problem is attacked from the root - something that seems to be carefully avoided in Wikipedia). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:25, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

bodybuilding.com and similar have been bot-blacklisted and shouldn't be.

See MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#bodybuilding.com about this. Thanks.Skookum1 (talk) 22:06, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

What am I supposed to do?—cyberpower _Online^{Merry Christmas} 22:18, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Skookum1 - they have not been bot-blacklisted. There are no bots that have access to editing any blacklist. Please WP:AGF. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:13, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm here now because Dirk Beetstra whitelisted bodybuilding.com, and so I took the bot's blacklist notice off a few articles it was on; but the bot has re-placed them since I did that. So Dirk told me to come back here and tell you/ask why.Skookum1 (talk) 16:28, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The da Vinci Barnstar
		For all your technical knowledge and the work you do utilizing it here. :) Acalamari 09:46, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you.—cyberpower _{Limited Access}^{Merry Christmas} 12:28, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Pages created tool

The "Pages created" from X!'s tools write "Notice: Undefined index: 10 in /data/project/xtools/public_html/pages/index.php on line 288 Notice: Undefined index: 10 in /data/project/xtools/public_html/pages/index.php on line 289" if I search for the templates I have created. Why is that so? Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:03, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I'll have a look later today.—cyberpower _{Limited Access}^{Merry Christmas} 12:28, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Cyberbot and full protection templates

Hi there! On this edit at RfPP, the bot noted that the page hadn't been protected yet, whereas it had. I think I've noticed the bot doing this before, but the issue does seem to be when a page is fully protected (rather than semi), it seems to struggle detecting the protection. Just thought I'd raise it. GedUK  12:23, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I replied there.—cyberpower _{Limited Access}^{Merry Christmas} 12:27, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

off by one error?

It seems the RfB counter is off by one support. Also [3] is a bit weird that it's maintaining the count in two places. Legoktm (talk) 19:11, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

The error was caused by User:Secret's vote.—cyberpower _Online^{Merry Christmas} 19:40, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

herp derp. Thanks! Legoktm (talk) 01:35, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Spambot

Is this not currently nobots compliant? Remember that nobots compliance was part of its approval, and without it should not operate. Liamdavies (talk) 14:29, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Nobots should be fixed.—cyberpower _Online^{Merry Christmas} 14:30, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

The bot shouldn't be operating if it isn't nobot compliant. As I said, it was part of the bot's approval. Liamdavies (talk) 15:25, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

And as I just said. I fixed the nobots bug. ;-)—cyberpower _Online^{Merry Christmas} 15:58, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

@Liamdavies: the bot was shut down whilst it was not compliant and as Cyber has tried to tell you its apparently been fixed. Blethering Scot 16:43, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

'Nobots should be fixed.' is hardly a definitive statement, I know it should be fixed, my post was about if it was fixed. That has now been clarified. Liamdavies (talk) 16:46, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

In my view it was a perfectly valid answer to your question. Your aware it was shut down to be made compliant and it was also discussed higher up this page.Blethering Scot 16:58, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I guess it's a matter of interpretation then. If I had seen it as a perfectly accurate answer, I would not have made the second post. Liamdavies (talk) 17:43, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Scottywong's tools

Hi Cyber. I would like to thank you again for all your efforts migrating tool to Labs. As you are probably aware, I'm concerned about Scottywong's tools. I see you have migrated some, but to save mes earching, could you please give me an update on what tools have been migrated and which are likely not to be. I'm particularly worried that some of the particularly useful ones might be deleted. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:08, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually. I have stopped on my efforts since Scottywong himself is migrating the tools now to his own locations.—cyberpower _Online^{Merry Christmas} 01:44, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

So far, these tools have been migrated:

• https://tools.wmflabs.org/afdstats/
• https://tools.wmflabs.org/usersearch/
• https://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/summary.py
• https://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/editorinteract.py

Will work on getting the majority of the other tools migrated, probably before the end of the year. Cyberpower migrated all of my bot tasks. ‑Scottywong| confess _ 17:53, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Invisible parameter

Hi, any idea why spambot did this? Did I not set the parameter correctly? Or is the bot malfunctioning? Also, could you put better instructions as to how to set the invisible parameter to true, maybe the template could already have the invisible parameter, but set to false, so users know how to change it. Liamdavies (talk) 15:50, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I didn't think that anybody would stick it in the middle so the bot isn't looking there. Place it at the end. I'll put in a patch to fix it.—cyberpower _Online^{Merry Christmas} 16:59, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I thought I was putting it at the start, but no matter. Thanks. Liamdavies (talk) 05:44, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Cyberbot II adding excessive resolved tags

Talk:October_2009 is one such example. I suspect it is a bug. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 22:23, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Sure looks like it. It's being caused because the main page has transclusions of other pages that contain blacklisted links which is causing the bot to see the tag on that page. It's attempting to remove a tag that is not there. Removing the thread should stop the bot.—cyberpower _Online^{Merry Christmas} 22:37, 14 December 2013 (UTC)