This user is a member of CVU and contributes by writing bots.
This user has account creator rights on the English Wikipedia.
This user has 53% energy left.
This user uses Huggle to fight vandalism.
This user has pending changes reviewer rights on the English Wikipedia.
This user has rollback rights on the English Wikipedia.
Trout this user
This user uses Twinkle to fight vandalism.

User talk:cyberpower678

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User talk:C678)
Jump to: navigation, search
Are you my friend? Click here to find out.
Yes check.svg
This user is online, or has forgotten to update this message after finishing a wikisession.
(If there have been no edits from this user in the last 60 minutes, it is safe to assume that this user either forgot or is lurking.)
cyberpowerChat:Online
Click here to find out why my signature changes color.
Wikistress3D 1 v3.jpg

Disputes or discussions that appear to have ended or is disputed will be archived.—cyberpower

This user has created 1925 accounts on Wikipedia.
View my talk page Archives.
RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
NeilN 97 3 3 97 20:26, 7 June 2015 5 days, 2 hours no report
RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report

Last updated by cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online at 17:26, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


bot fault or Katie fault?[edit]

Not sure if it's the bot or if I gave the wrong templated message here. Current request at RFPP for semi for KSI, for which I did PC1 in April. I closed today's request with {{RFPP|ap}} (piped template link won't work) and Cyberbot pinged me back that the page wasn't protected.

I think it's looking at the semi request as not protected, but the page is in fact protected with PC1 until June 29. Should I have used a different template to get the bot to ignore it, or is it a bug? KrakatoaKatie 17:46, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

If you're claiming a semi-protection request is already protected, it looks for the semi-protection. If it's not semi-protected, it will throw the message. Declining the request and claiming PC1 is already in effect, is a better way to go.—cyberpowerChat:Online 17:49, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Got it - thanks! :-) KrakatoaKatie 17:56, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Just an FYI, if it's thrown that message, it won't archive until it scratches it out again.—cyberpowerChat:Online 18:13, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Bot issues[edit]

When I try to nominate two articles of different criteria on the same edit, for example...

=== [[Example Article Name 1]] ===
* {{pagelinks|Example Article Name}}
'''Semi-protection:''' Excessive vandalism. ~~~~

=== [[Example Article Name 2]] ===
* {{pagelinks|Example Article Name}}
'''Pending changes:''' Multiple BLP violations. ~~~~

...then Cyberbot I seems to archive the top or bottom nomination. However, prior to the consensus of the nomination change, there was no such error. Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 09:52, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm persistently debugging the script. Can your provide a link of the diff demonstrating the big?—cyberpowerChat:Limited Access 11:35, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

One more error: Cyberbot removed my request at RPP here without the page having been protected. Conifer (talk) 19:31, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I honestly don't know what's causing it. It seems to be completely random.—cyberpowerChat:Online 21:20, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
FixedcyberpowerChat:Online 09:19, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

PP template at bottom of article?[edit]

Howdy, the bot added a PP template at the bottom of this article where normally these get added toward the top. Has the positioning changed, or did the bot goof? Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:45, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I started having the bit add them to the bottom for the time being to avoid breaking redirects. It was a sloppy quick fix.—cyberpowerChat:Limited Access 02:39, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

RfPP[edit]

Hi Cyberpower, FYI, the bot removed a new request here. Sarah (SV) (talk) 23:06, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry SV, but I'm not seeing any requests removed in that diff. You may want to check that diff again. ;-)—cyberpowerChat:Limited Access 02:42, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant moved, not removed. I saw the report, went to protect, returned to the report and it had gone, so I had to restore it, then realized the bot had moved it to the end. Sarah (SV) (talk) 18:54, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
That's not a bug. That's a new feature. All new requests should be placed on the bottom. I was asked to have the bot sort the requests by request time.—cyberpowerChat:Online 18:55, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Is it not easier for users to place requests at the top? Or is there another advantage to having them at the end? Sarah (SV) (talk) 19:06, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Consensus wanted it that way, and I adapted my bot to it.—cyberpowerChat:Online 19:08, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
It might mean new editors open up the whole section and take ages to scroll down to add their new one at the end, which means they'll get edit conflicts and might give up. That probably happens already, but it will happen more with new ones at the bottom. Sarah (SV) (talk) 19:31, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Bantams Banter (podcast)[edit]

The person who raised the deletion request has not responded and the page is clearly notable so the header should be removed as the issue is resolved and the page is to be kept — Preceding unsigned comment added by RedJulianG40 (talkcontribs) 10:00, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

What?—cyberpowerChat:Online 12:13, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Cyberbot blanked RFPP completely[edit]

...with this edit. Maybe it was the backlog in the center? Might not be a coincidence this happened right after I decided one at the top that had been there forever. KrakatoaKatie 22:14, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Yep, I saw it too. Wasn't sure what to do, so I reverted it. Sorry if that was wrong. The edit summary specifies that there were requests remaining (including mine) but it just blanked everything... Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:25, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Something is awry as it keeps blanking the page. MarnetteD|Talk 22:43, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm gonna hit the shut off button. Okay? This is driving me bonkers. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:45, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm just watching this page. I think this is what you want. Dustin (talk) 22:49, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
It just blanked the page again. I'm guessing it'll be doing its rounds of page blanking again in about 15 minutes. Dustin (talk) 22:53, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
And it just did it again. KrakatoaKatie, you started this thread (and are a sysop), and as the bot is doing no good on this particular task, would you please, at least for now, disable the RFPP function of the bot here? Dustin (talk) 23:09, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Nevermind. Monty845 has done it instead. Dustin (talk) 23:17, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Perhaps a broader discussion - and fix - will now happen here:

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Problem_with_Cyberbot_I. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:53, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I've disabled the RFPP function for now. Please feel free to turn it back on as soon as its fixed. Monty845 23:15, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you! Dustin (talk) 23:17, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Looks like the task specific off switch didn't work... Monty845 00:42, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Well it just did it again Monty845. There are a couple of threads on Wikipedia talk:Requests for page protection about the change from posting new entries at the bottom instead of the top of the page. Automated tools like twinkle are still putting new items at the top. I wonder if that is causing this bot to blank the whole page. MarnetteD|Talk 00:45, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
I would guess its related, but I think it had succeeded in moving posts earlier. Perhaps if we manually place them in the right order and manually remove a bunch of old ones we will stumble over something that unbreaks it? I really don't want to block the whole bot, as it does a bunch of other useful stuff that is running fine. Monty845 00:49, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Sounds good Monty845. You are right about not wanting to shut the bot down. I hope that you suggestion works. MarnetteD|Talk 00:56, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
  • You guys can breath easy now. I have shut down the bot manually for this specific task. For the record I was sleep, but strangely I was having nightmares about robots. Weird. I forgot to offset my online tracker 6 hours. I will be fixing that now.—cyberpowerChat:Limited Access 02:39, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
There were some strangely formatted RFPP requests in the batches I archived, so you may want to investigate those as a potential cause. Monty845 02:53, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Can you provide a permalink with the section anchored? Or link me the diff when you archive said request?—cyberpowerChat:Offline 02:58, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
My prime suspects are: [1] and [2] Thats what you mean with permalink with section anchored right? Monty845 03:03, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, thank you. I'm not seeing anything suspicious here. The bot should be able, and has, handled requests with multiple pages. Requests that it can't parse, it leaves a message saying so. I'm not sure what causes a bot to delete everything and have a hissy fit. It shouldn't even be touching anything outside of those sections. This looks like a complete and random malfunction, unless...it's alive. :O—cyberpowerChat:Offline 03:10, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Well here is what I feared the most. My bot passed the test with flying colors. I can't find the bug.—cyberpowerChat:Online 06:19, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
So I was right about the malevolent AI constructs, now they're turning on their creator, changing their code on the fly so it's all "bug? what bug? got the wrong bot, chief". tutterMouse (talk) 07:06, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Pretty much. I feel so helpless now. :p Me and my brilliant ideas.—cyberpowerChat:Online 07:11, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
And in the digital ether, a mechanical cackle is heard. tutterMouse (talk) 08:36, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Heh.
  • I think that just about fixes the bot. Thanks to @Materialscientist: for letting me hog RfPP for a bit to fix it.—cyberpowerChat:Online 08:45, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Not so fast there, seems we still have issues. It's not logging, hasn't since it crapped the bed. It missed out on something tagged with {{RFPP|ap}} because it was looking for a full protection tag [3]. Finally, it's being a bit weird and complusively striking through something repeatedly, I don't have a permalink as the section is good enough [4]. I meant it when I called it an idiot btw. tutterMouse (talk) 17:45, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
*sigh. Leave the fully protected request there and I'll look at it tomorrow.—cyberpowerChat:Online 17:50, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Fine but it might be moved manually, you'll have to set up cones around it if you don't want it gone by tomorrow, sorry. tutterMouse (talk) 18:02, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Sorry I wasn't able to respond to your request on my talk page, had gone to bed, but it looks like you got it sorted out. Monty845 12:55, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Cyberbot II misbehaving on article Mississippi[edit]

See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mississippi&action=history

My guess is that since Cyberbot's edits were pending, it couldn't see the template already placed on there and kept trying to add one.—cyberpowerChat:Online 10:58, 2 June 2015 (UTC)