User talk:AnomieBOT

CHUUClerk

Template:Formerly

This task was in trial until 2010-10-20 16:59:32 (UTC), which has now passed. Please stop the task and report the completion of the trial at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AnomieBOT 47. Thanks. When you have fixed this issue, please change the section title (e.g. append " - Fixed") or remove this section completely. I will repost the notice if the page is still broken or is re-broken. Thanks! AnomieBOT⚡ 17:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I extended the trial to indefinite, until it is formally approved. –xeno^talk 17:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Why not just approve it? Anomie⚔ 22:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Over-sensitive involvement meter? –xeno^talk 12:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

To my mind, if you're uninvolved enough to approve a trial you're probably uninvolved enough to just approve the thing. But we can go with this, it doesn't matter much. Anomie⚔ 17:29, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I dunno, I kindof always figured (we don't have any rules on this I guess?) that there should be some check/balance - the BAGger who approved the trial should generally not approve the task, etc? I must admit I usually err far on the side of caution as far as involvement rules go. I normally wouldn't have even approved the trial, but I'a'r'd because it's a critical task and I'm presently the most active 'crat on the usurp page. –xeno^talk 17:48, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I almost always approve the task when I approved the trial; it seems to me that we don't usually have enough active BAGgers to do otherwise. Anomie⚔ 20:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Well met. –xeno^talk 20:31, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• Feature request: monitor the usurp requests where notified=no and change to =yes if the notification occurs. –xeno^talk 13:13, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

  Y Done Anomie⚔ 15:06, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

  Cool beans. Thanks, –xeno^talk 15:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

• Is it possible for the bot to detect after a request is fulfilled and change {{status}} -> {{status|done}} & append *{{done}} –[[user:xeno|<font face="verdana" color="black">'''xeno'''</font>]][[user talk:xeno|<font color="black">^talk</font>]] <!-- Autosigned by AnomieBOT --> ~~~~~ or some such? (Other bureaucrats might want to opt-in to this too at some point.) It may make sense to put it on some kind of delay or timer so the bot can do it one edit as I usually fulfill a bunch at the same time. Thanks! –xeno^talk 05:58, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I think the code is ready. Please protect User:AnomieBOT/CHUUClerk closer opt-in and add your name, and I will upload the bot code (you can watch for that at User:AnomieBOT/source/tasks/CHUUClerk.pm). It'll copy your sig off that page, something like ": {{done}} $sig <small>([[User:AnomieBOT/CHUUClerk closer opt-in|autosigned by AnomieBOT]])</small> ~~~~~" resulting in a notice like

 Done –xeno^talk (autosigned by AnomieBOT) 00:59, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Anomie⚔ 00:59, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Hm, doesn't seem to be working? I've fulfilled two requests and left them for the bot to sign but not signed to this point and bot has done other clerking on the page. –xeno^talk 16:55, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Bah, I had the tests in the wrong order, it was checking "already-clerked" before "auto-close" and so never getting to the "auto-close" check. Should be working now, let me know if you see any other problems. Anomie⚔ 18:50, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Works great, A++++ botop, would buy again. –xeno^talk 14:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

• This is probably a really rare problem, but is it possible for the bot to detect if an editor has accidentally reverted to an old revision of the page? [1]. –xeno^talk 14:33, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

  Hmm, that's a tough one. I'll have to think about it. Anomie⚔ 17:13, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

  Don't worry about it too much. Another idea I was toying around with was having the bot just move simple requests to CHUS rather than complaining about them. –xeno^talk 17:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

  Either that, or I can just process simple requests on the usurp page and the bot could archive to the CHUS archive... –xeno^talk 15:19, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

  Please implement whichever solution is easier - the bot simply moving simple requests to CHUS (possible issues for this would be that the user didn't meant to make it simple and just futzed up the input) or recognizing when I fulfill a request was simple, signing " Done as CHUS"/recognizing when I sign it that way, and archiving to the simple archive. –xeno^talk 23:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

  It would probably be less prone to error to do the latter. Anomie⚔ 03:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

From a wider standpoint, I am wondering if it would be a good idea to see if X! and Chris G would mind if AnomieBOT took over the whole show (as long as you're available to expand the codebase) - having three different bots for to manage the username pages seems somewhat inefficient. –xeno^talk 23:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

If they're agreeable, I could do that. Anomie⚔ 03:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe best to just table that for now. Quick question: does the bot only act on bureaucrat's dones and notdones? –xeno^talk 16:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes. It's not 100% foolproof, but I believe it is ever so slightly more foolproof than what ClueBot VI did. Anomie⚔ 20:23, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

• In order to make the by-line more accurate, could you change it to

Requests left here should be addressed on or before x.

Thanks. –xeno^talk 23:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

•  Done Anomie⚔ 03:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

• Hm input failure results in removal: [2]; try to save & notify of user error. –xeno^talk 01:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Hmm, it's because they used a level-3 instead of a level-4 header. Anomie⚔ 03:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Lhasa 2010-10-27

I am not quite clear about what you wish for editors to do to correct Talk:Lhasa#Orphaned references in Lhasa this?]. I can address all of these issues very quickly, so could you clarify? --HXL 何献龙 04:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The article Lhasa contains "<ref name= CMA />", but there is no "<ref name= CMA>something</ref>" in the article. The bot found references named "CMA" in related articles, but it doesn't know which one it might choose so it asked for a human to decide which (if any) is correct. Anomie⚔ 11:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

ok I believed that it was a standardisation issue. all of the additional references given by the BOT were correct. the problem at Lhasa is that there is a separate template which uses the full citation for CMA. This issue occurs with many other city articles, you know. ok thank you for the clarification --HXL 何献龙 13:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

TY

TY for fixing my oops! :-) DocOfSoc (talk) 10:44, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Dobie

Hello. The first four are the same ref. The 4th is in the most correct form. Thanks. Rosser Gruffydd 12:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Quick question

I'll make this short a sweet: you (or rather your BOT) went through GoldenEye 007 and moved all references out of the templates and placed them inline with the text. My question is this: is there an actual policy indicating the preferred (or even mandated) location of named refs when used in both templates and inline with text? If there is no explicit rule to the contrary, I personally prefer leaving them in the templates so that they don't encroach upon and obfuscate the text. So if this is a matter of preference, I'll be reverting the edit. However, if there is a policy of which I am unaware, I'll certainly make every effort to rectify my placement of refs in the future. Thanks for your time. DKqwerty (talk) 15:57, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

If you really don't like refs 'encroaching' on the text, look at WP:LDR. The motivation behind the bot moving named refs out of templates is because a ref in a non-displayed field in a template will not be recognized by MediaWiki. Anomie⚔ 17:59, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

That's an excellent suggestion and I will certainly consider footnotes over citations. However, I'm still confused as to what you mean by a "non-displayed field in a template." Perhaps you could elaborate or give an example, since I'm not sure which fields constitute "non-displayed". Thanks. DKqwerty (talk) 19:19, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

See in this old revision there is an error that "no text was provided for refs named autogenerated1", because the infobox doesn't show the value of |length_ref= when |length_mi= is empty. Moving the ref out of the infobox template fixed it. Anomie⚔ 00:07, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

awww

your not simple dont be hard on your self —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.222.227.22 (talk) 21:54, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

ITN/C archiving shut down

See Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates. the bot added a section three times when there already was such a section. I've temporarily shut it down for you to examine. Courcelles 18:27, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that the bot uses a very simple heuristic to determine what to do with the page: it keeps 5 dated sections, and adds a section for the current date if the first dated section isn't the current date. Someone oddly went and added a section for November 25 even though it won't be that date for a few hours yet, which caused the bot to get confused.

The question is what to do about it? Anomie⚔ 20:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll draw the attention of the person who added that section to this thread. Hopefully won't happen again. Nightw, please don't add sectins manually like this- you see the consequences. Courcelles 20:17, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I apologise, I hadn't realised that the sections were regulated by a BOT. In my defence, where I am geographically, it's been the 25th for over eight hours so I'd found it odd that a new section hadn't been added. I assumed it was done by an administrator. But point taken, and noted for future. Apologies. Nightw 20:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Most dated things here on the English Wikipedia seem to go by UTC. Californians are in the opposite situation, it'll still be the 24th for them for 8 hours after everything on-wiki changes to the 25th. I suppose other language Wikipedia's more closely tied to a particular country may well use a timezone in that country.

As for the bot, I've adjusted the code to check if the current date is in any section heading on the page rather than just the top section, so if anyone happens to do this again the bot won't be quite so annoying. Once I've uploaded that, I'll re-enable the bot. Anomie⚔ 21:26, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Awesome! Thanks alot. Nightw 10:47, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I've added an item to Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#Please_do_not... to discourage users from doing this. Modest Genius ^talk 00:17, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Single quote as a typo in ref names

Hi Anomie. I noticed that when a ref name is accidentally enclosed with a single quote, e.g. <ref name="blahblah' > , AnomieBOT just deletes the name parameter [3]. This doesn't fix the problem, of course, and is a useless edit that requires more human time to puzzle out what's happened to the messed up ref. It seems to me it would be easy for the bot to spot and fix this kind of typo. Diderot's dreams (talk) 18:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll have a look later; if I don't reply in a day or two, remind me to look. Anomie⚔ 20:11, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Just a reminder :) Diderot's dreams (talk) 19:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder, done now. Anomie⚔ 20:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

BAGBot

This task was in trial until 2010-11-24 19:42:33 (UTC), which has now passed. Please stop the task and report the completion of the trial at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AnomieBOT 48. Thanks. When you have fixed this issue, please change the section title (e.g. append " - Fixed") or remove this section completely. I will repost the notice if the page is still broken or is re-broken. Thanks! AnomieBOT⚡ 19:44, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Can the bot recognize when the latest line is a "re-trial" (BotExtendedTrial, or otherwise) and move it back to "in a trial period"? (e.g., 2, 3) –xeno^talk 14:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
  •  Done It was already detecting since 2010-12-19 and showing that way in WP:BAG/Status, but not moving them on WP:BRFA. Hopefully it doesn't make the bot do the wrong thing in any more unusual cases, though. Anomie⚔ 16:56, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Great. Thanks =) –xeno^talk 16:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

• Curious, does the bot detect flaggings and updated WP:BRFAA accordingly? –xeno^talk 14:55, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
  • No, or at least not yet. Anomie⚔ 17:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
    • It would be cool if it did. Since I'm pretty lazy. –xeno^talk 17:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
      • Let's try that. Anomie⚔ 21:55, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Disney Epic Mickey Reference error

The bot attempted to fix a broken link to an IGN review for Disney Epic Mickey by suppling a link to a review for a completely unrelated game. I have fixed the error. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Disney_Epic_Mickey&diff=398799581&oldid=398787240--ThomasO1989 (talk) 16:26, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing it. Unfortunately, the bot can't really tell if a reference with the same name is really for the same game or is just inexactly named. Anomie⚔ 17:25, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Deleted edits bug?

According to this clerking, the requesting user has -5 deleted edits. Simple error? bibliomaniac15 02:09, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Copied the algorithm from the old bot. It assumes that the edit count returned by the API's list=users counts both deleted and undeleted edits, so you could theoretically find the number of deleted edits by subtracting the number of (visible) undeleted edits. Obviously that's not completely accurate, probably uploads show up in contribs but aren't counted in list=users or something. If you could tell me how many deleted edits that user actually has, that might help. Anomie⚔ 03:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

23 deleted eds. I probably have heard the answer for this before, but why aren't you an admin again??? –xeno^talk 14:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I've uploaded some new code so the counts should be more accurate in the future, although for this particular user it's wanting to say 24 deleted edits rather than 23 so something isn't quite perfect. Who knows, it's possible that extra deleted edit is where someone moved a page over a redirect he created by hand (which deletes that redirect beyond all possibility of recovery).

As for the admin question: For a good while I didn't want to be an admin. I eventually changed my mind to where I wouldn't mind being an admin, but besides not needing {{editprotected}}, protecting pages like User:AnomieBOT/CHUUClerk closer opt-in, odd cases like this, and maybe blocking a rogue bot or occasional vandal I wouldn't have a whole lot of use for it. And from what I gather I wouldn't pass RfA these days if I did try, because I don't do anti-vandal patrol, I don't hang out at AFD, I've only done major content work on 2 or 3 articles, I wouldn't plan on getting involved in any particular area requiring admin tools, and so on. Anomie⚔ 19:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I think you're one of those users everyone thinks is an admin and won't be able to find a good reason to oppose. Let me know if you'd ever like me to write a co-nom (I say co-nom, because I'm such a lazy bastard and would prefer to leave the nom itself to someone whose willing to dig and write more, but I would do the nom thing too if you asked). –xeno^talk 19:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC) And on-topic: the exact edit counts aren't that important as long as they're close

And if you find a nom and wouldn't mind a co-co-nom … :)Amalthea 20:26, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, both of you. I won't turn down a nomination if someone does go ahead and do it, but I'm not going to seek it out myself at this time. Anomie⚔ 20:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Bot reverting user space sandbox

I was experimenting with the {{uw-block}} template in my userspace, when this bot substed the template for no reason. Please set the bot to ignore the user space. HeyMid (contribs) 12:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The bot did have a reason: {{uw-block}} is a template that is supposed to be automatically substed. I cannot exclude userspace, as there are templates that should be substituted in userspace ({{uw-block}} may in fact be one of those, if its usage on User:212.219.250.2 and User:165.234.180.59 is correct). Please use {{nobots}} if you want to keep bots out of your sandbox. Or, in this case and depending on just what you're trying to do, use |nosubst=1 or |demo=1 to prevent the bot from substing that particular instance. Anomie⚔ 14:49, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Bot still is improperly functioning

In this edit, the bot picked up an errant ref but it formatted it as: <ref name=USAtoday>[http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-07-18-air-ambulance_x.htm Robert Davis, "Reconsidering air ambulance usage", ''USA Today'', July 18, 2005, accessed July 13, 2007]</ref> instead of: Davis, Robert. [http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-07-18-air-ambulance_x.htm "Reconsidering air ambulance usage."] ''USA Today'', July 18, 2005. Retrieved: July 13, 2007. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:48, 5 December 2010 (UTC).

Added <nowiki> for clarity

That's exactly how it was formatted in the article in the revision before you removed it. The bot doesn't do any formatting of references, it just copies and pastes from the article history. Anomie⚔ 01:13, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, couldn't figure out why the bot would re-format the ref incorrectly, now I see that it was a previous editor. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC).

Check redirects for WP physics

I was wondering if AnomieBOT could do the following task for WP physics:

For every article tagged with {{physics}} (or any of its synonyms), check if the article is redirected. If the target to which it is redirected is also tagged with {{physics}}, set the assessment parameter to |class=redirect |importance=NA. If the target is not tagged with {{physics}} then remove the {{physics}} template and log the name of the redirect and the target page name.

If possible within the scope of the bot, I would like a more general task to be performed:

For all articles tagged with {{physics}}, tag all of the pages that redirect to that page AND whose talk page exists and is not itself a redirect with {{physics|class=redirect|importance=na}}.

Thanks so much, in advance.TimothyRias (talk) 09:37, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Added {{tlx}} to avoid having my talk page tagged with {{physics}}

Has this been discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics at all? Anomie⚔ 11:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Quality Control#Assessment sweep (bot request). Although, as you can see, there was no too much interest in the discussion. At the very least there was no opposition. (Note that points 2 and 3 are no necessary, since I found different ways of achieving the same thing.) TimothyRias (talk) 12:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah, ok. I see no discussion of part about tagging all redirects to physics articles, though, which is the more controversial part (but much less so than if it didn't include "whose talk page exists"). One possible issue with that is if a non-physics topic redirects to a larger article that is (in part) about physics, for example Einstein on socialism. Anomie⚔ 15:20, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I see your point. I agree, that the tagging of all redirects might be more controversial. It should probably be discussed more thoroughly. Could you just do the first thing (checking the currently tagged articles for redirects)?TimothyRias (talk) 15:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Sure. Anomie⚔ 17:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

BTW, I've asked this to you plenty of times before Anomie :p. It never was a problem in the past and won't be now. Our practice is to tag redirects, just so stuff isn't lost after merges, redirects, etc... This way, when something is unredirected, or brought to RfD, we still have our tag on it (and is picked up by the Article Alerts, assuming they would be working, or by bots such as this one when they need a new assessment). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:37, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Previous message refers to tagging all redirects withing categories, or with existing talk pages. All redirects (indiscriminately) to physics article has never been done in the past and could be a problem. That would warrant discussion at WT:PHYS. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I also note that removing the templates from pages which don't redirect to physics articles is not something that was discussed in the thread... that too would need discussion. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Bot stopped, although I think it was done by now anyway. The pages it removed the banner from are:

Anomie⚔ 19:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry, for the mistake on my part. (I thought I had proposed exactly this before on the project talk page.) I'll go through the list to see if any redirects were remove erroneously. This needed to be done anyway (which is why I asked these actions to be logged) because it indicates that the redirect target should have been tagged with the physics template and wasn't.TimothyRias (talk) 11:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Revert vandalism

This bot is awful. At best misguided. I've seen this bot "rescue orphan refs" but I'm yet to see a case where it didn't do more harm than good. What is needed is to tell editors to revert the vandalism not "sweep the rubbish under the carpet" or "plaster over the cracks". It an achievement to have programmed this bot and very clever that you can identify and repair orphan refs but unfortuntiley it misses the point. It is a terrible piece of premature optimastion and it is far better for a page to fail early and for an editor to fix it properly than to have AnomieBOT fix it badly and to allow a page to continue on with editors failing to notice that sections have been blanked or vandalised. Please stop. Please seriously reconsider. I've no doubt that anyone smart enough to write this is smart enough to understand this bot is creating worse problems than it is trying to solve. -- Horkana (talk) 01:10, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Many other editors seem to disagree with you. Anomie⚔ 03:59, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure there are many editors who are glad to see the small fix the bot provides but fail see from the history that other information has been lost due to vandalism.

Maybe some of those who praise your bot do in fact understand what is going on and are have made the effort to check agianst oldver versions. For me is only useful in that it acts as a flag to a more subtle form of vandalism and work that needs fixing, which is not a bad thing exactly just not as simple as "rescue orphan refs" suggests.

Also if you expect people to read the notes at the top of this page it is not wise to have them hidden/collapsed by default. -- Horkana (talk) 17:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

This bot works very well. I am impressed how it rescues refs. Cool programming that goes right over my head. Thanks for putting it together. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 06:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

OrphanReferenceFixer suggestion

Hi, AnomieBOT is wonderful. When a page has a missing reference not in history, it checks all pages the page links to, correct? Now if one of those pages is a redirect, could you make the bot follow the redirect, in case it's not too hard? That would catch a greater number of missing references, I think. Just a thought, Shreevatsa (talk) 10:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

 Done I thought it did that already, but apparently not. Thanks for the suggestion. Anomie⚔ 16:44, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

CHUUClerk: Cannot find info for username in WP:CHUU#Marianpetre → Marian_Petre - Fixed

In WP:CHUU#Marianpetre → Marian_Petre, I cannot load information for the target username. Please fix me. When you have fixed this issue, please change the section title (e.g. append " - Fixed") or remove this section completely. I will repost the notice if the page is still broken or is re-broken. Thanks! AnomieBOT⚡ 13:30, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Should probably treat underscores as spaces. –xeno^talk 14:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that was it. D'oh. Anomie⚔ 16:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

How fast should a BOT expand/cleanup article tags? Less fast than AnomieBOT is doing it, methinks.

I wonder if it might be good design to put a bit of a "human-delay" into how soon AnomieBOT ought to edit a page and add, say, a date to an article improvement tag.

Today, AnomieBOT hit me twice while I was still editing an article: once at about 7 minutes after my last edit, and once at only ten seconds after I had made an edit. The article is VTVL so you can look at the edit log.

I think that a BOT ought to wait, maybe 30 minutes or more, before making small little cleanup fixes like adding dates to tags, simply because the edit conflicts created by doing it faster decrease human editor efficiency, and may even tick some of them off. N2e (talk) 15:42, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

That reminds me, I need to add in code to honor {{in use}} for this task too. Do you know if SmackBot implemented any particular delay? Anomie⚔ 16:35, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Y Done I set the delay to 30 minutes for now, at least until someone answers the above question. Anomie⚔ 17:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the change. I don't know what SmackBot might have done, but usually don't find it updating the dates on article tags for one to three days. That's not a totally bad idea. Why? Well, no change by a BOT for a day or so is kind of like allowing a day to pass (kind of like waiting for one "news cycle") where folks who have a page on their watch list might catch a "most recent" edit for human review before a BOT grabs it, and then of course, will leave only a BOT userID as the user who last changed the article. Moreover, it doesn't really matter if, say, an {{citation needed}} tag gets added on 30 Nov 2010 and the date gets set by the BOT that later finds it to date=December 2010; at least I don't think so. That's my two cents. Cheers. N2e (talk) 21:30, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

SmackBot skips inuse altogether. Rich Farmbrough, 16:34, 16 December 2010 (UTC).

I'd like to see AnomieBOT use that logic, too; that's part of why the {{inuse}} tag exists, after all: to keep bots from creating edit conflicts for editors working offline. I imagine ignoring that tag could create rather a lot of extra server load in the middle of a GOCE backlog drive, for instance... // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 02:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I put in the code to honor the 2-hour limit declared in the {{inuse}} documentation about 5 and a half days ago. I see no reason to ignore articles with the template indefinitely. Anomie⚔ 04:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I guess recent edits answer my question above about how long SmackBot waits after the last edit before dating maintenance tags: AnomieBOT has hardly dated any tags since yesterday, since SmackBot has been dating them immediately after they're added. Anomie⚔ 17:48, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Do they honor GOCEinuse, or just inuse?TCO (talk) 20:10, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

AnomieBOT actually uses Category:Pages actively undergoing a major edit to determine whether to consider the page "in use". I've edited {{GOCEinuse}} to add that category, so it should be good now. I can't say how SmackBot or any other bot might work. Anomie⚔ 21:20, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Covering up vandalism

Don't know exactly what should be done about this, but it seems like rescuing references often has the effect of covering up large deletions of sourced material, often vandalism. Sometimes references get legitimately removed in the course of editing, but often its just blanking. Even some blankings are OK, but I think this bot should consider, if technically feasible, some red flags that prevent it from acting. For example, when an anon removes large amounts of sourced text without an edit summary. Admittedly that would not have worked here where the deceptive edit summary of "minor" was used, but it would be a start. Savidan 18:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

It is a hard problem. The bot currently waits 2 hours after edits by IPs or "new" editors in the hope that anti-vandal bots or human editors will revert vandalism beforehand; at one point, an informal study indicated that most vandalism that was going to be reverted in a timely manner was reverted within 5 minutes, but I've bumped up the time limit a few times anyway. That particular revision, however, I wouldn't even class as vandalism. It looks more like POV-pushing to me, which no bot is likely to be able to catch. Anomie⚔ 19:14, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

April 11, 2005 listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect April 11, 2005. Since you had some involvement with the April 11, 2005 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Mhiji (talk) 01:16, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

cool!

Nice how it rescued the orphaned references! Thought I would have to do that manually.TCO (talk) 20:30, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Question

Why did the Bot rescue dead lnks in the Glenn beck article? DocOfSoc (talk) 06:47, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I guess you are talking about this edit? The article originally contained, for example, both <ref name="LKamb092609">...</ref> and one or more <ref name="LKamb092609"/> referring to it. You then removed the <ref name="LKamb092609">...</ref> but left the <ref name="LKamb092609"/>, which results in a in the article (see here). AnomieBOT replaced one of the remaining <ref name="LKamb092609"/> with a copy of the <ref name="LKamb092609">...</ref>; it did not re-insert the reference to where it was deleted, it just replaced one of the remaining instances. What you need to do to fix it is to make sure you remove all instances of the named reference so as to not leave any . Anomie⚔ 15:31, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

ACNClerk

Was so impressed with your work with #CHUUClerk, I figured I'd give you the right of first refusal for a bot task I'm shopping around. We're looking for a bot that would keep an eye on both Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard and Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard and add a link to the archived discussion and to the archived announcement, respectively. I haven't decided if it would be best to amend the original link or add a bracketed one after it, but that's the basic idea. Any interest in picking this up? –xeno^talk 20:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC) It would be even cooler if it could do this for all the stuff that's already been archived, but this may be a tall order

Sure, I can take a look. I'm not clear on what exactly it should be doing there, though. Anomie⚔ 12:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I've asked for a clerk to drop by and give some more exact details on how this (was) (should be) done. Thanks =) –xeno^talk 14:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

It shouldn't be that bad. It should simply be a matter of changing [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Sanction appeal|Original announcement]] to [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 4#Sanction appeal|Original announcement]] on WT:ACN and [[Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Sanction appeal|Discuss this]] to [[Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 3#Sanction appeal|Discuss this]] on WP:ACN. NW (Talk) 17:42, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Should "Discuss this" not be changed to "Archived discussion" or something? (Assuming we don't want people discussing by editing archives...) –xeno^talk 17:44, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Could be solved just as easily be full-protecting the archives. But that wouldn't be a bad idea if you could retroactively apply it to the previous ones. NW (Talk) 17:57, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Code is almost done. There seems to be some section titles that were used more than once, though:

Wikipedia namespace

• "Full clerkships" in Archive 2 and Archive 5
• "Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria" in WP:ACN and Archive 3
• "Resignation" in Archive 6 and Archive 3
• "Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking" in Archive 6 and Archive 5
• "Arbitration Committee Elections: voting now open" in Archive 6 and Archive 5
• "Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science" in Archive 1 and Archive 2

Wikipedia talk namespace

• "Discussion of announcements" in Archive 8 and Archive 4
• "Suggestion" in Archive 6 and Archive 2
• "Eastern European mailing list" in Archive 12 and Archive 6
• "Appeals to BASC: Shamir1 & DollyD" in Archive 10 and Archive 9
• "Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light" in Archive 10 and Archive 12 and Archive 13
• "Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence" in Archive 13 and Archive 12
• "Arbitration motion regarding Eastern European mailing list" in Archive 11 and Archive 12
• "Resignation" in Archive 11 and Archive 12 and Archive 3
• "Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf" in Archive 11 and Archive 10
• "Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria" in Archive 5 and Archive 13
• "CheckUser and Oversight elections" in Archive 5 and Archive 4
• "Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking" in Archive 5 and Archive 13
• "Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley" in Archive 7 and Archive 6
• "Wikipedians supporting the restoration of the mop to William M. Connolley" in Archive 7 and Archive 6
• "Opposing the restoration of the mop to William M. Connolley" in Archive 7 and Archive 6
• "Policy Discussion" in Archive 7 and Archive 6
• "Courtesy blanking of case pages" in Archive 7 and Archive 6
• "Thought experiment" in Archive 7 and Archive 6
• "Betacommand: relaxation of editing restrictions" in Archive 7 and Archive 8

Not sure what to do about those. Anomie⚔ 04:21, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

So the bot is having trouble reconciling which should point where? –xeno^talk 14:52, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

What I'll probably end up doing is correct the existing links manually before running the bot, and then tell the bot to use the most recent target (e.g. prefer Archive 12 over Archive 11, and the non-archive page over any archive) for any future cases. Anomie⚔ 17:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Did that. BRFA filed Anomie⚔ 04:40, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks so much for coding this Anomie. Is there any way to account for this type of situation? NW (Talk) 20:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
  • That's a bug.  Fixed Anomie⚔ 02:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Awesome :) NW (Talk) 14:33, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Bot error?

Although this is a somewhat outdated edit (which means it may have been fixed since), this edit removed a redirect transclusion without archiving the review. HeyMid (contribs) 14:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Undo Your Edits to Prince Rashed Al-Khuzai Article

Dear AnomieBOT

Hope you are doing well.

i have undo some edits that you have made at the article of Prince Rashed Al-Khuzai and i have did that to clarify that this article is not an orphan article and many articles are related to it and it include many references at the same time. another reason for undo your edits is that I would like to state that i have edit a well known reference that is: Neinawa News not Encyclopedia as i stated before.

Regards,

thank you.

Khalid Al-Saud Khalid Al-Saud (talk) 20:07, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Dating of {{coord missing}} tags

Could you please adjust your bot so that it does not add dates to {{coord missing}} tags, as it did in this edit? Doing so interferes with my own bot's activities. Thanks, -- The Anome (talk) 21:45, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

AnomieBOT uses the list at Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Dated templates for the majority of its dating (it also does {{multiple issues}}, {{as of}}, and {{update after}}, which aren't listed there). Someone already removed {{coord missing}} from that list on 2010-12-21, and according to its log AnomieBOT hasn't dated a {{coord missing}} since that date. Anomie⚔ 23:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! -- The Anome (talk) 20:20, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit war on article Pavao SkalicHi Chazz

Hi AnomieBOT,

I see that there's problem with article Pavao Skalic, resources, reliability etc... I've have read contributors ( 88... and something) comments and i must agree he's right. Instead of insisting on citations, resources, and other stuff for some constatations, I think this article should be cleared of any constatations ( even ones with regular citations) and leave only pure facts. If you ask me why, there's one simple answer - editing history on this page show us that obviously there's to much conflict about his nationality... and will be in future, so that could be avoided by removing any interpretation and leaving text with simple facts which cannot be disputed. What's your thoughts on this issue?

Words of user 88... :

Compromise ? How about to leave only facts such as, he was born in, ... lived in countries,... etc... and leave disputed infos. about his nationality behind... ? And leave anyone who read it to decide for himself... isn't that more than reasonable?

Although he is acting like vandal, he has a point with this conclusion, what do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.152.245.18 (talk) 12:29, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstanding the situation. AnomieBOT is not adding any tags, it is just adding |date=January 2011 to tags that other people add so that articles with problems can be correctly organized by date the problem was identified. AnomieBOT, being a computer program, lacks the capacity to care about your dispute. Anomie⚔ 13:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)