Open main menu

Update timesEdit

I feel the vandalism levels of wikipedia getting updated every 30 minutes isn't frequent enough. I think every 5 minutes would be better. Thoughts? — RosscoolguyCVU | 20:29, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Please see the comments at our BRFA on this issue. Especially this line from BAG member Hellknowz: "I would say anything less than 20-30 minutes and 2000+ edits is not a large enough sample size. So much can change in a few minutes. I definitely don't think you can judge a site-wide vandalism from just the last few minutes." Vacation9 21:26, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, but it could look for vandalism for the last 30 minutes and update every five. No? — RosscoolguyCVU | 00:31, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't even make sense... Anyway, Sigma raised concerns about the edit rate if we edited every five minutes. If it looked for vandalism in the last 30 minutes but edited every five there would be duplicate counts, and it wouldn't be accurate at all. I don't know how that would work. The consensus at our BRFA was for 30 minute edit intervals, and that's how it will stay unless there is an extreme shift in views. Vacation9 01:11, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Not working?Edit

Why did the bot stop updating the vandalism template? The last update was 6:00 UTC January 24 2013. The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 00:59, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

It seems that the server VoxelBot is currently running on (bots-4 on Wikimedia Labs) is down. We're moving it to another server temporarily. Thanks for notifying us. Vacation9 01:35, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
  Done Moved to bots-3 Vacation9 01:41, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Romanian diacriticsEdit

Congratulations for your decision to correct the Romanian diacritics on! However, in one of your first edits you still missed some old diacritics: Parcul Naţional Cheile Nerei-Beușniţa, Caraş-Severin County, Reşiţa, Caraşova, Şopotu Nou. Or are these planned to be modified in a later stage? Razvan Socol (talk) 05:28, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The bot cannot directly replace characters in links, as it would break the link. The first stage, running now, is going through a lot of pages in the Geography of Romania category and moving the page to the correct title, then correcting all mentions of it. The second stage simply corrects the characters outside of links. Sadly, it is not possible to combine the two tasks easily, and it would be very risky. By the end, all those pages should be corrected. Vacation9 12:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Is the job finished regarding the Romanian diacritics? If not, why did you stop? Is it related to Wikidata? Razvan Socol (talk) 15:38, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, it should be. Did I miss some? Vacation9 15:48, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Well, even in Cheile Nerei-Beușnița National Park (mentioned before), there are some links mentioned at the top of this section. In the Daneș article we can find Daneş, Sighişoara, Mureş County, etc. In Băieţi buni, we can find Băieţi buni, Dragoş Bucur and Ştefan Bănică, Jr.. There are even some articles which are not renamed yet: Gheorghiţă Ştefan, Ştefan Vodă District, Ştefan Foriş, Viişoara, Edineţ and so on... Razvan Socol (talk) 17:59, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry to hear that. However, please realize no bot can be 100% effective. We only operated on certain subcategories so there would be no false positives. The rest are small in number and can be manually corrected. Vacation9 11:50, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Interlanguage linksEdit

Hello! Here you corrected romanian diacritics not only in the body of article, but in the interlaguage links too. And these links became incorrect. So, please, exclude them from your editing area. --Emaus (talk) 06:18, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it shouldn't have done that. The find and replace was corrected yesterday to only correct links which were direct. Vacation9 12:18, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Redirect loopsEdit

Hi. I just reverted a couple of cases where VoxelBot had created redirect loops: [1], [2]. Then I realized there were several more similar cases; see Double Redirects. So I thought at this point I should pause and ask if you could please take a look. Thanks. – Wdchk (talk) 03:52, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, yes that is true. That task has stopped for now however. Looks like it wasn't too bad. Feel free to fix them if you want. Vacation9 00:45, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


Thanks for creating User:VoxelBot/NotabilityStats. It is nice to have many updates in a 24 hour period while the notability tag discussion is happening but in the long term (if the template is to be kept) a weekly update would be sufficient. Cheers. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:16, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Numbers need explainingEdit

The numbers, eg 288/5, in the vandalism info need to be explained. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:21, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

They are explained in multiple places. For example, Template:Editnotices/Page/Template:Vandalism information. It means "edits/reverts per minute". This is averaged over a 30 minute period. Vacation9 18:21, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism stats wantedEdit

I see that Template:Vandalism information is regularly updated. Can you get the long term data to me so I can graph it for Wikipedia:WikiProject Statistics? Thanks. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:24, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I will see what I can do about this. It's a Fox! (What did I break) 16:53, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Available now at WMFlabs. It's a Fox! (What did I break) 13:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for that but I am not sure how to produce an output that is presentable for WikiProject Statistics. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 18:23, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Good articles need updatingEdit

Hello, the bot hasn't updated any of my GA Article Historys lately including HalloWeekends, Firehawk (roller coaster), Mean Streak and X-Flight (Six Flags Great America) as well as other GAs such as Goliath (Six Flags Fiesta Texas), Hollywood Rip Ride Rockit, and SheiKra. I was wondering if this could be taken care of! Thanks,-- Astros4477 (Talk) 22:09, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

That's not what VoxelBot does. VoxelBot promotes GAs to FAs after an FA promotion discussion has taken place. Vacation9 22:49, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
FYI, GimmeBot (talk · contribs) use to do this task.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:19, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Missing link in notificationEdit

Thanks for this, but the notification should really wikilink the article in question. Thanks, Rd232 talk 01:37, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Does so now. It's a Fox! (What did I break) 22:59, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

William Crawshay IEdit

Hi. When I saw this article that I created "recently" had been tagged, I was confused as I had no memory of it. When I checked back, I had created it in 2006! I realise it may be difficult to amend the message wording to take dates into account, so how about just removing the word "recently"?Deb (talk) 08:37, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

That should actually read "tagged recently" :) It's a Fox! (What did I break) 22:58, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism Information Misleading?Edit

On the surface, the number of reverts in the last period of time may seem as a good indication of how much vandalism is flying about. However a simple thought experiment challenges this idea:

Let us assume for the sake of example that at level one, five antivandals patrol, and vice versa (i.e. more patrollers when critical.) Also assume for the sake of example that the level of vandalism remains constant. When nobody is patrolling, the report will say level five, because of the lack of reverts. Now someone starts patrolling and they find a fair amount of vandalism, so the report level increases. As the report level increases, more AVs join and suddenly every edit is being scrutinised and all vandalism is found. So the report goes to level one, but the AVs get bored of patrolling, and start to tail off. So vandalism gets missed, and the report level decreases.
The vandalism has remained constant, the reports are merely reporting how many AVs are patrolling. This is the inverse of what should be reported - when there are fewer AVs about, it should encourage more to come on.

I wonder if a better value would be to take all the users who reverted more than five times in the last time period (to remove casual cleanups) and average how many reverts they've made. If the AVs are reverting large numbers, then the level should increase, because there aren't enough to catch all; if fewer reverts per person, decrease as there are enough AVs to clean up. 930913(Congratulate) 21:11, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Interesting theory. I see your point, but there are three issues:
This is the way the template has been for years, and I don't want to just change it. People rely on the template and how it is updated.
When people are manually updating the template, for example if VoxelBot is down, they can't do this, as they use Huggle
You're getting into saying whether additional antivandals are needed, and straying away from the current levels of vandalism.
Additionally, the current method is reasonably accurate, as _most_ vandalism is reverted within thirty minutes, and outliers will vanish in the 30 minute average. Thanks for writing this, but unless clear consensus is shown for this change, we won't implement it at this time. Vacation9 22:52, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Here's a thought: How about basing the information off Cluebot NG's reverts a minute. That pretty much fixes the problem. The only issue is what to do when Cluebot is down :P nerdfighter 21:36, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

  Bumping thread. nerdfighter 23:54, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

ClueBot NG gives revert per minute stats? Where? (I want them :))It's a Fox! (What did I break) 22:28, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Er.. I wasn't trying to imply it did per se, but surely it wouldn't be hard for it to keep a log or something. nerdfighter 00:15, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh :) The only thing that I can think of off the top of my head is the IRC feed, but in the BRFA we already agreed that IRC would be difficult to implement... hmmm... I know VoxelBot keeps a log here, but that's not really relevant. I'll look into it, but our current detection method seems to work well enough. It's a Fox! (What did I break) 22:18, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

FAC archivingEdit

Hi, the bot is not archiving FACs correctly. It is describing the articles as lists and adding the wrong closing delegate. [3] and wrong date and time of closure. I have fixed the ones from today and yesterday, but I notice that this has been a problem for some time. The bot saves a lot of time and tedium and it's really appreciated. It would be great to get it fixed. Best wishes, Graham. Graham Colm (talk) 11:00, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

It also failed to include an action ID at Arthur W. Radford.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:20, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
In response to Graham, describing articles as lists was an error with the substed template, not with the bot. I fixed the template. About adding the wrong delegate, it adds the most recent delegate who edited the page at the time of its daily run. We thought this would be fine as it is run every day and the list usually isn't updated that often and we had to get this going ASAP. The code is available at my GitHub if anybody would like to implement it. To Tony, the bot doesn't include the oldid. That can be implemented by anybody and then making a push request at GitHub. Vacation9 13:11, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the detailed explanation, and thanks again for your help. 19:41, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
  • The promotion dates seem to be consistent with the old algorithm. I think the promotion date has been historically the date that the delegate closed the discussion rather than the date that the bot updates the page. Unless you choose the right date, it makes it less likely that people will choose the proper oldid number.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:22, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Also, the bot is adding the new T:AH entry at the bottom of the template, it should be added above the general information about the talk page within the template at the bottom of the discussion list.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:30, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
  • To echo Tony, the bot failed to also swap the "GA" flag to an "FA" one on the Marie Lloyd talk page. See here. Not a problem (I changed it), but I wouldn't want the problem to persist. --CassiantoTalk 19:40, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Featured Portal Candidates archiving ?Edit

Can this bot please be used for Featured Portal Candidates archiving?

That would really be a help to us over there.

Thanks very much for your consideration,

Cirt (talk) 02:30, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

This seems like a really great project that I would be happy to take on when I have the time. That being said, when I have the time. Don't expect it to be done right away, as I'm getting more and more busy. I'll put it in my priority list though. How exactly do you want the requests archived? Vacation9 03:29, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
The same way that FAC works, I think, is the way GimmeBot (talk · contribs) used to do it. Just check the logs and the WP:FPORTC page, see which ones were promoted/archived, and update those discussion subpages, add the star to the portal main page, and update the ArticleHistory on the portal talk page. You can see an example by GimmeBot (talk · contribs), with the recently promoted Portal:Society. Thank you very much, — Cirt (talk) 03:48, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Reply to VoxelBot about Article notability notification left on my talk pageEdit

On 24 May 2013 at 22:19, VoxelBot left the following listing on my talk page:

== Article notability notification ==
  Hello. This message is to inform you that an article that you wrote, Only Time Knows, has been recently tagged with a notability notice. This means that it may not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Please note that articles which do not meet these criteria may be merged, redirected, or deleted. Please consider adding reliable, secondary sources to the article in order to establish the topic's notability.
  • First off, I want to say there really ought to be a better way to respond.
  • Second, although the article may not meet the impossibly high notability guideline, it has plenty of secondary sources (five independent, one liner notes, and one by their current publisher), and I have added several more since the notability notice was added. Did you or any uber-editor re-review the article, or only notice that at one point a notability notice was added.
  • Per the notability guidelines, it does not matter if the band is notable, but only if each album is notable. Since this was the band's first album and self-published, it can be argued that the album is not notable. However, I can find many other albums that fall into that category. Dixie Chicks first album Thank Heavens for Dale Evans is a very similar article to Only Time Knows and has way less references. The album is only notable because of who the Dixie Chicks are, and not for the album. That argument also applies to Bearfoot's first album. While Bearfoot is not as successful as the Dixie Chicks, in the Bluegrass scene, their fourth album was #1 in the Billboard bluegrass charts in 2009 and their fifth album was #7 most played bluegrass album in 2012, which means the band is reasonably notable. So that brings us to the question of when an album article should be allowed. If the Dixie Chicks album Thank Heavens for Dale Evans is not marked for notability failure, that seems to indicate a bias on the part of the uber-editors or a work over-load. In addition, there are all the EPs by The Cranberries, none of which are notable, and all of whose articles are simpler than for Only Time Knows.
  • If needed, I can find a hundred more albums that are not notable that have articles (not hyperbole), but the fact is that I don't want any album article to be deleted. Album articles are necessary to gather facts and details about the album in one easy to reference place, Wikipedia. If all the article did was to provide track names, that would be one thing, but a good album article lists track times, and who wrote each song, and the performers for the album.
  • You could put that information into the band article, but doing that for five albums would be clumsy, and doing it for just one album would be odd. Therefore, leave the album article alone, delete the notability notice, and move on.
  • However, if you do decide to delete the article, who may I appeal to about the biased way the notability notice is applied, or even appeal about my opinion that every album article is necessary?
  • There was a discussion in the Notability (music) talk page on merging the merging of non-notable albums (page 14 of the archive). At the end of the discussion, one commenter posted this "Suggestion - Another option would be to delete the album article, add the basic album info in the artist or artist discog page, and provide a reference (such as Allmusic) that has the track listing and other detail. Happy new year! GoingBatty (talk) 06:09, 2 January 2013 (UTC)". This is a poor suggestion as AllMusic is sometime incorrect about song composers, and appears to have stopped listing song composers for album tracks. This means that Wikipedia is the correctable proper source for album information, and AllMusic is only of use as a limited reference source.
  • Third, I wouldn't be using the bullets at the front of each paragraph, but Wikipedia merged all the paragraphs into one big block, so if there is a better way to separate paragraphs, I apologize for not using it. Mburrell (talk) 01:57, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Revised RPM ThresholdsEdit

@Fox Wilson and Vacation9: Just run some stats for you.

RPM % (rounded)
1 5
2 20
3 27
4 20
5 14
6 7
7 4
8 2
9 0.5
10+ 0.3

I'll discuss on IRC with Vacation9 the best new thresholds. 930913(Congratulate) 18:48, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Bot broken or just slow?Edit

Hi, it doesn't look like the bot has been working on closed FACs for a week or so -- something up? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:39, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

It's possible WMFLabs is acting up, but just looking at VBot's edits this morning it seems like it closed them. Let me know if this happens again. Vacation9 17:20, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
There still problems with the first four here Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/May 2013. Graham Colm (talk) 10:15, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Oh, that's because the bot will only archive the current month, let me make a little change. Vacation9 12:44, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Not replacing GA project classification when template has spacesEdit

Talk:Paul Kagame had a template formatted like this:

{{WikiProject Military history|class = GA |importance = high |African=yes |African-importance = top |Biography=yes}}

However, the bot did not pick up on this and change it to FA when it edited this page recently. I assume it is because the class parameter has spaces around the = symbol, whereas the others don't. I will make this change manually now, but thought I'd report this as something to consider with the bot. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 14:06, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Daytime Emmy Award for Outstanding Younger Actor in a Drama Series/archive1 and Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Daytime Emmy Award for Outstanding Supporting Actress in a Drama Series/archive1Edit

Hello, My name is SoapFan12. I have few questions for you. First of all, can you please tell me what happen to the bot? The Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Daytime Emmy Award for Outstanding Younger Actor in a Drama Series/archive1 has been upgraded to an FL status few days ago, and the talk page has never been change by the bot. Secondly, I was wondering if you will be interested in reviewing: Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Daytime Emmy Award for Outstanding Supporting Actress in a Drama Series/archive1? If it's not possible for you, I understand. However, it will be greatly appreciated! Thanks in advance. SoapFan12 16:18, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


Unless I'm missing something, the bot has not run on the FAC archived/promoted stuff since 7 July, and there are quite a few articles/FACs that have not been updated. I don't know if there is any particular reason, or if you are aware. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:34, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. I had an article promoted on July 14, no bot to add the star yet. Montanabw(talk) 22:18, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

A possible bugEdit

On 8 June 2013 this bot added a featured article template to SMS Thüringen but did not delete the existing good article template.[4] The result was that the corresponding images (specifically File:Symbol_support_vote.svg and File:Cscr-featured.svg) were displayed at the same time and in the same place. I have since solved the problem. However, I'd like to suggest to the operators to look into this bug. Thanks, -- (talk) 05:23, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

List of Detroit Red Wings draft picksEdit


List of Detroit Red Wings draft picks was promoted to Featured List recently, however when VoxelBot updated the article page it did not update the talk page at the same time (it appears that doing both at the same time is the norm). I would do it manually, however the instructions specifically say not to. Thank you for looking into this. Regards, Rejectwater (talk) 11:05, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Bot issuesEdit

Hi guys, just letting you know the bot generally seems to be working but there are still odd omissions/inconsistencies:

  • When God Writes Your Love Story and three other articles were promoted on 31 July but haven't been touched by the bot, yet those promoted in August have been closed/updated as expected.
  • William Hely was promoted on 28 July and the bot closed the FAC page and added the FA star to the article but didn't update article history.
  • Priyanka Chopra was promoted by Graham Colm on 16 July but the bot reckoned it was me. I recall this used to happen quite a bit but generally not anymore.

Anything you can do to help... If there's something about a particular article or talk page, pls let me know. Thanks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:59, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

    • List of sunken battlecruisers also hasn't been closed properly, although it was promoted over two weeks ago.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:09, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

A review of FAC closings since 01 June turned up the following:

I have manually closed all of these today, but I'm concerned that they were missed, especially as there's no obvious pattern: they are from six different dates, and from both promoted and archived FACs. Hope you will look into this so we can get to the root cause. Thanks as always. Maralia (talk) 01:18, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, it looks like the bot hasn't done anything with FACs since 17 August. This is kind of a problem, since Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Parity of zero/archive2 was closed on 21 August and is scheduled to appear as Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 29, 2013. I guess I should manually close it, if only to prevent confusion? Melchoir (talk) 18:16, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
I'll take care of that one for you. Hope we can get some bot action on the others, though. Maralia (talk) 18:32, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! Melchoir (talk) 20:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

───────────────────────── I was glad to see that the FAC bot ran today! Unfortunately it ran on 3 articles. We still need it to act on:

The bot seems to have stalled in the middle of closing Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Interstate 75 in Michigan/archive1. I couldn't find anything particularly unusual on the article talk page, where it seems to have stopped; I went ahead and finished that close. Would appreciate your help in closing the other pending ones. Thanks again. Maralia (talk) 18:31, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for getting the promoted FACs done. The archived FACs (additions to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/August 2013 since August 17th) still need action. Also, I saw a note somewhere last month that you were working on adding FAR closing; is that still in the works? Thanks as always. Maralia (talk) 00:28, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

"S&M" history not updatingEdit

"S&M" was promoted three days ago but none of the history has been updated and the star hasn't been added. Articles promoted to FA after "S&M" have been updated and the nomination archive, but "S&M"'s hasn't.  — aron 14:36, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

FAC closing taskEdit

The FAC closing task doesn't seem to have run since 09 September. The following are pending:

Thank you. Maralia (talk) 16:32, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello. Is it possible for this bot to close FARs as well as FACs? Thanks. DrKiernan (talk) 19:57, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

FAC nom closed, but talk page not updatedEdit

See this FAC - this action does not seem to have been completed. Although the FA star has been added to Great North of Scotland Railway by the bot, at Talk:Great North of Scotland Railway nothing has been done: the {{featured article candidates}} is still there, the {{ArticleHistory}} has not been updated, and the WikiProject banners have not been given |class=fa --Redrose64 (talk) 15:12, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I will complete this one for you manually. Maralia (talk) 15:46, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
User:Vacation9: In the bot's last pass, it only half completed the above close, and missed the following:
  1. No. 36 Squadron RAAF
  2. Regents of the University of California v. Bakke
  3. Cabbage
  4. John Sherman
  5. Of Human Feelings
  6. Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy
Hope you can look into what is causing the bot to stall out. Thanks. Maralia (talk) 15:46, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
This is still not fixed, at least for John Sherman. --Coemgenus (talk) 19:55, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
@Vacation9: The bot frequently stalls out after adding the FA star but before updating article talk. This has been an ongoing problem. I've put together a list of examples that may help in debugging:
William Hely
Thaddeus Stevens
Interstate 75 in Michigan
Julianne Moore
Great North of Scotland Railway
John Sherman
21st Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Skanderbeg (1st Albanian)
I manually completed all of the partial closes, but would appreciate your effort in tracking down this apparent bug. Maralia (talk) 14:30, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

When VoxelBot promoted FAs today, it promoted 4 out of 5 completely, but did not update the talk page of the fifth (2012–13 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team).--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:12, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Missed Michael Tippett too.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:44, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
and Melbourne Castle and The Sinking of the Lusitania.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:03, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Melbourne Castle was a stalled close; I finished it. The Sinking of the Lusitania appears to have been properly closed by the bot. Maralia (talk) 20:13, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

FAC closing task downEdit

@Vacation9:The bot has not performed any FAC closing work since the morning of November 26th. There are five archived nominations and three promoted articles in need of closing thus far. Appreciate if you would get the task back online ASAP. Please also see the thread above where I am trying to help you troubleshoot the recurring problem with the bot stalling in mid-close. Thank you. Maralia (talk) 21:18, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

@Fox Wilson:Are you able to restart the FAC closing task? It hasn't run in over a week. Maralia (talk) 14:29, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
There appears to be a code problem -- the bot is still running, but failing to run. I'll ping Vacation9 on IRC, and in the meantime, I'll look at the code myself. Thanks for letting us know :) It's a Fox! (What did I break) 22:43, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi the bot is still not closing FACs. This is becoming a pain in the arse. Should we be seeking an alternative? Graham Colm (talk) 17:46, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
FYI, we are pursuing an alternative; discussion located at User talk:Maralia/FA bot. Maralia (talk) 06:15, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

FL issuesEdit

Hi @Vacation9:, we've got a few Featured Lists that have failed, but still have not been archived:

In addition, the following nominations are still open despite having being withdrawn:

Is there a way to direct the bot over specific articles to close these down? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:30, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


Why did you update the level to yellow? I didn't do any vandalism. Thanks, Aharonz1 (talk) 11:25, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Bot errorEdit

This bot edit was apparently to add a featured list star, but it turned List of works by Sax Rohmer into a circular redirect. Dl2000 (talk) 15:45, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

March 2014Edit

  This is your only warning; if you remove or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia again, as you did at 4 (Beyoncé album), you may be blocked from editing without further notice. IPadPerson (talk) 19:54, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Ah, in fairness, the article had been renamed mid-FAC, and this has confused closing bots in the past... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:03, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

manual closeEdit

had to manually update article history on Japanese battleship Nagato although the bot correctly added FA star and archived the nom.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:48, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Fuck featured article closeEdit

Any idea on when the bot will come by to close Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties/archive1 per closed/promoted and update the article's talk page?

Thank you for all you do for the featured article process,

Cirt (talk) 04:50, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The bot hasn't run for over a week. There are several FACs waiting to be closed. Graham Colm (talk) 22:48, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Also Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Stockton and Darlington Railway/archive1. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:02, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

VoxelBot not updating Template:Vandalism information correctlyEdit

What I mean is that the bot isn't updating the template every 30 minutes like it's supposed to. It updates around 1 AM - 1:30 AM UTC instead of every half an hour like it's supposed to. Human editors need to update the template manually. Any information on how this is going to be fixed? K6ka (talk | contribs) 18:33, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Ping Fox Wilson & Vacation9! (tJosve05a (c) 23:33, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
I'll take a look and see what I can do; nothing has been changed and it still should be running on Wikimedia Labs. Vacation9 14:50, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
It looks like it was not updating it because the level it had cached was level 4. It only makes changes to the template if the level changes. I removed the level cache and it should be working again. Vacation9 15:16, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
@Vacation9: It worked - for like a minute. It's dead again, back to manually updating the template. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 22:45, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Featured article archivingEdit

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Walt Disney/archive1 has been closed for a long time now. Please close it properly, bot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Forbidden User (talkcontribs) 14:17, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

And now Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Boat Race 2012/archive1 NickGibson3900 - Talk - Sign my Guestbook 04:57, 23 August 2014 (UTC)


hey how could I have a bot on the page List of Turkic dynasties and countries Turkic_ Warrior 22:01, 7 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mehmeett21 (talkcontribs)

Return to the user page of "VoxelBot".