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
Jump to: navigation, search
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.)
cyberpowerBe my Valentine:Online
Click here to find out why my signature changes color.
Wikistress3D 1 v3.jpg

  • Hello!! I am Cyberpower678. I am your typical run of the mill user here on Wikipedia.
  • I specialize in bot work and tools, but I lurk around RfPP, AfD, AIV, and AN/I, as well as RfA. If you have any questions in those areas, please feel free to ask. :-)
  • I also serve as a mailing list moderator and account creator over at the Account Creation Center. If you have any questions regarding an account I created for you, or the process itself, feel free to email the WP:ACC team or me personally.
  • At current I have helped to create accounts for 2231 different users.
  • Disputes or discussions that appear to have ended or is disputed will be archived.

All the best.—cyberpower

View my talk page Archives.
RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report

No RfXs since 01:16, 6 February 2016 (UTC).—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online

Archivedate format[edit]

Cyberbot II sure is creating a lot of work for me lately. I think about 40-50% of my changes this last week have been cleaning up after this bot. Its changes are useful but I have to change many of them to be consistent with the yyyy-mm-dd style used for references in many vehicle articles.  Stepho  talk  20:56, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I've had a look at a few articles you've been cleaning up on, and sorry to say, there is nothing I can do. The majority of articles use formatting the bot uses and articles that need a different format have template somewhere in the article designed for bots to detect and adjust formatting. An example is {{usedmy}}. The bot looks for these tags and formats accordingly defaulting to {{usemdy}} for articles without formatting tags. The good news, Cyberbot won't touch those links after this.—cyberpowerChat:Online 15:17, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Archiving bug[edit]

In this edit your bot looks like it was confused by the {{Full citation needed}} template and didn't quite format the archive template correctly. Just a heads up. Modulus12 (talk) 16:48, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually it's because someone attached the template directly to the link. That's bad formatting. The bot looks for the start of a link and continues until it hits a whitespace. That then gets interpreted as a link. In any case I will make an effort to refine the parsing system.—cyberpowerChat:Limited Access 16:55, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

archiveurl and archivedate vs archive-url and archive-date[edit]

Hi! Your bot made this edit, which put a correct internet archive url into the citation, but used the parameters archiveurl and archivedate instead of archive-url and archive-date, which caused poor formatting in the reference output. Inserting the hyphens into the reference citation made things work nicely again. Argyriou (talk) 19:38, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

They have identical functions. It was you adding the title parameter that fixed your problem.—cyberpowerChat:Online 19:53, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
That's weird. Not having a title causes the archive linking to not work right? I'll believe it - I looked at some template syntax once and it looked like LISP with curly braces instead of parentheses, so I suspect it's easy for that to happen. Argyriou (talk) 00:25, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

archive failure[edit]

I've started looking at the archive links you are creating, and I am very impressed.

I am working my way through a list of articles where you have created an archive link, and up until now, all have checked out fine.

I ran into one today that did not work:

When I click on the archive link, I get a “shell” associated with the University of Vrginia, but no content. Given the large number of links you are working on, I don't know that you have time to track down issues, but I wanted to bring it to your attention.

I tried locating the right page at but failed.

My fallback plan is to track down the information from other pages (I have found some of it, but not all).

Thanks again for the work you have done, it is tremendous.--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:04, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Cyberbot will be happy to hear that. Unfortunately, while the accuracy of Cyberbot is very high, it will not always generate a working link to use. It's unfortunately unavoidable.—cyberpowerChat:Online 23:30, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Is there an 'ignore' list for the bot?[edit]


First of all, thanks very much for your bot. I do appreciate the work that it does.

It has been checking a lot of EastEnders related articles recently, an example is Abi Branning. However, some of these articles will not need checking because their links have been checked by myself recently using Checklinks. Is there any way to get the bot to ignore some articles rather than create it more work?--5 albert square (talk) 15:35, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Not at current. Cyberbot II is still in development.—cyberpowerChat:Online 15:42, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
No problem. Thanks for the response :)--5 albert square (talk) 16:12, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

My names jeff[edit]

Your bot(cyberbot I) readded the deletion template I had placed and removed as another user put the speedy deletion tag on at about the same time. I am going to revert your bots edit as both are not necessary. Please advise if there is something I should have or could have done differently.Krj373 (talk) 22:01, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Here is a Barnstar for you[edit]

I am particularly impressed by the cyberbot II edits that I see routinely. personally i feel this is of immense value to wikipedia.

For creating and maintaining Cyberbot II
Devopam (talk) 09:05, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Vitruvian Barnstar Hires.png The Technical Barnstar
For your work on Cyberbot II, a well-implemented and highly useful dead link-rescuing bot, I hereby award you the Technical Barnstar. GregorB (talk) 12:24, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Cyberbot II: "archiving 99 sources"[edit]

But Cyberbot didn't really archive 99 sources. He just archived a handful. Thought I would point out this potential (?) bug. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 08:57, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I really need to make an FAQ.—cyberpowerChat:Online 14:14, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker). Or, a fresh bangin' edit summary 718smiley.svg That one tricked me too! I was going to stalk an answer here, but I took a nap instead. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 23:10, 20 January 2016 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Cyberpower678. You have new messages at Cyberbot I's talk page.
Message added 23:47, 20 January 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I just wanted to let you know that I have just reverted a change made by as I thought it to be possible vandalism on page User:Cyberbot I/Run/Meta-cont page. if it is not please do revert my change. Cheers :) Hot Pork Pie 23:47, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

OMG, weren't even ment for you.SShocked.gifSORRY!!!Hot Pork Pie 23:54, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Okay now I'm going bed confused......HOPE YOUR HAPPY WITH YOURSELF!!! Face-smile-big.svgHot Pork Pie 00:03, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi and thank you. I assume you're confused because my bot's talk page redirected to me. I own Cyberbot so when people have questions, the talk page will redirect to me where they can ask it.—cyberpowerChat:Online 00:36, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

It added spam[edit]

Somehow, the bot added a spam link with this edit. It was reverted. Prhartcom (talk) 15:02, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

No it didn't. It did it's job.—cyberpowerChat:Limited Access 16:09, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) The original link was still active, but apparenly usurped by an unrelated spam site. Can't really blame the bot in such a special situation (the spam was already present before) - I have removed the original URL manually and added the functional non-spam archive in 3 other topic-related articles. GermanJoe (talk) 16:31, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Oh is that what happened? That's unfortunately unavoidable. The bot isn't responsible for links already on the page.—cyberpowerChat:Limited Access 16:37, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank-you, GermanJoe, your efforts are appreciated. Cyberpower678, in the future, we would all appreciate it if you would investigate the evidence presented to you and not just reject it argumentatively. Prhartcom (talk) 00:36, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
I didn't. The bot didn't add a spam link. The spam link was already there and the bot added a working archive link to the page. The bot is doing what it's supposed to.—cyberpowerChat:Online 01:18, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
We know. Read above; GermanJoe explained that. My comment obviously is to your originally unhelpful, outright rejection of any problem. There was a problem and now it is resolved. In the future, there is no need to take the defensive. Check the evidence that people bring you in good faith and see if you can solve it. Prhartcom (talk) 06:19, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
"We"? Just for the record, I disagree with your opinion (please don't assume to speak for other editors). The initial response may have been a bit short ;), but Cyberpower is maintaining several bots at once and is usually quite helpful. Considering that the problem was not caused by his bot, he is not obliged to research unrelared issues in his free time. You should cut him some slack for a relatively minor misunderstanding. GermanJoe (talk) 08:11, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Dead Links from Web Archive[edit]

Hi Cyberpower,

German Wikipedia uses a bot + human approach since 2012 to fix dead links. See Project Link Maintenance. The bot (Giftbot) checks the of links and automatically suggests Web Archive, if available there (example).

Greetings, --Kopiersperre (talk) 18:00, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. As Cyberbot continues to develop, it will eventually go global. Setting this feature up should be pretty straightforward given its current capabilities.—cyberpowerChat:Limited Access 18:50, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Cyberbot I and Current Events portal[edit]

Hey Cyberpower! In case you weren't aware, I wanted to let you know that it looks like Cyberbot I has been erratic in creating "new day" pages at Portal:Current events over the last few days. For example, I had to create the one for January 20, 2016 and somebody else had to create the one for January 23, 2016. So, in case there's any issue here, I thought I'd let you know. (I know I read elsewhere that someone (the WMF?) did something that has affected the performance of bots within the last few days – dunno if this is related...). --IJBall (contribstalk) 01:29, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

WMF changed the way bots now login, because they want to progress to using AuthManager ASAP. This meant that bot owners would have to erm... mess around. Cyberpower did all of that. However, the wiki was rolled back to the last version yesterday due to a security issue, so those changes are causing the bot to fail working now. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 14:36, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
It's still not working correctly: Cyberbot I failed tonight to create the entry for Portal:Current events/2016 January 24. So it's failed to do it the last two days in a row now... --IJBall (contribstalk) 06:18, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
I'll have a look to see what the culprit is.—cyberpowerChat:Online 20:16, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
This task only runs once every 24 hours, and successful or not, it leaves it at that. I believe the failures involved were caused by the bad tokens initially, and the session invalidation (forced logout), due to MW bugs. Cyberbot I itself seems to be fine, and I note it created the portal for the next day already. If it keeps failing let me know.—cyberpowerChat:Limited Access 02:36, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Tasks down[edit]

The bot tasks fell over due to a change in the API meaning bots need to use OAuth or Special:BotPasswords to login whenever that springs into action. You might already be aware but if not then that's why there's a heap of badtoken errors in your logs. tutterMouse (talk) 14:13, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

An announcement was posted on the Bot Owners' Noticeboard and he read it. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 14:30, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Cyberpower made the changes but all wikis were rolled back yesterday, so it's failing. :3 --QEDK (T 📖 C) 14:38, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
This was a different issue. Yesterday's sessions were forcibly invalidated, causing Cyberbot's cookies to go bad. I restarted the bots to refresh the cookies. Cyberbot does not use the BotPasswords but uses OAuth instead, and I'm pretty sure that hasn't been rolled back. I think.—cyberpowerChat:Online 14:40, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
The phab task is still open but I think Legoktm probably ran the resetGlobalUserTokens.php script. In which case, you're correct. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 14:43, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Don't worry, Cyberbot uses the fancy stuff. :p—cyberpowerChat:Online 14:45, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Pull request for Xtools[edit]

I'm tired of that annoying redirect. [1] --QEDK (T 📖 C) 14:39, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes check.svg DonecyberpowerChat:Online 14:41, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 14:45, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Book talk[edit]

Hello, has the bot stopped generating the Book reports now? —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 11:46, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm still in the process of moving it to a new login method. I forgot that this bot is completely separate from the rest.—cyberpowerChat:Online 20:17, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Bot updated. I have started it on a run now.—cyberpowerChat:Limited Access 02:26, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

A cookie for you![edit]

Choco chip cookie.png For helping to clear out the backlog at requests for account creation after nearly a week of being done! Kharkiv07 (T) 19:55, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

You've got mail![edit]

Hello, Cyberpower678. Please check your email – you've got mail!
Message added 14:58, 25 January 2016 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

1989. COOL BEANS! 14:58, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Cyberbot II[edit]

Hi Cyberpower678. Am I right in thinking that Cyberbot II fixes dead links which are tagged with {{dead link}} in articles which have been changed "recently"? If so, is there a specific time period after which articles "drop off Cyberbot II's radar"? e.g. if I tagged an article with {{dead link}} two weeks ago and Cyberbot II hasn't processed it yet, should I fix the links myself, or is there a chance Cyberbot II will still process it? Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 12:19, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Cyberbot II checks all articles with a tag. Not just recently changed articles, so it will eventually get to yours.—cyberpowerChat:Online 14:52, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Cool. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 20:15, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Sig problem[edit]

The syntax highlighter reveals a problem with CyberbotII's signature. There should be a close to span inside the two right square brackets at the end. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:47, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Unrelated, but your own signature is probably a problem too; it does not contain a direct link to your userpage or user talk page. You link through redirects, but this will probably cause problems with, in particular, participation reports which I believe are coded to look for signatures. It's also makes it more difficult for users to ping you directly because they can't copy and paste your actual username from the raw text of your signature. –xenotalk 12:53, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
    They can still ping me with C678. Besides I am grandfathered in because I've been using a redirect sig for 4 years now. When the policy discussion took place about redirect signatures, it was closed as passed, but to let sleeping dogs lie. Consider me a sleeping dog. :p—cyberpowerChat:Limited Access 16:31, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Victoria and Albert Museum article - feedback[edit]

Hello, I just tried to check the two dead links the bot fixed on Victoria and Albert Museum. The second link is fine, but the first provided a dead link to the archive because the source (the Times) is now behind a paywall. When this happens the only thing one can do is look for an older dated version of the archived page that hopefully predates the paywall, and sometimes that doesn't even work depending on how the source set up their paywall to block archiving. Wasn't sure how else to report this. I can set the check to "done" as I did check but wanted to let you know one link was no good, although it may not be the problem of/ fault of the bot. TheBlinkster (talk) 10:40, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

At current there is no good way to ensure 100% reliable archive fetching. It does it's best however to get a working copy. it attempts to add the link based on the given access date or when the link was first added to the article.—cyberpowerChat:Online 17:43, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

RFPP template problem[edit]

Hey - MusikAnimal is on vacation so tag, you're it. :-)

There's a problem with the 'already done' (ad) parameter of {{RFPP}}. Its output is supposed to be 'Already done by administrator Katie' (for example) with 'administrator Katie' being a link to my user page. The actual output, though, is a link to User:By administrator KrakatoaKatie, which is, of course, nonsense. I used this template just a few minutes ago on a request for J.P. Manoux, if it helps.

Looking at the code, the same problem exists with already protected (ap) and already unprotected (au) as well. If 'by administrator' is taken out, I think that would fix it but it's really beyond my capability to make the edits and still have the end output what it's supposed to be. Can you help? Katietalk 22:35, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Try using the template now. It should work Korrectly. <-- see what I did there? :p—cyberpowerChat:Online 23:51, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Multiple passes?[edit]

Hi Cyberpower678. Can Cyberbot II process the same article multiple times? i.e. if it only fixes some of the dead links in an article (as it did here), is there a chance it will come back again and fix more/the rest? Or does Cyberbot II only process an article once, and if there are still dead links left afterwards, they need to be fixed by human editors? Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 07:39, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

It will eventually. When Cyberbot completes one run, it will do another. It's designed to check and re-check articles.—cyberpowerChat:Online 17:44, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Cool. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 20:29, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Cyberbot II not always updating talk page[edit]

Hi Cyberpower678. Cyberbot II doesn't seem to be always updating article talk pages at the moment. Is that intentional/expected? Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 08:13, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Bad session cookies probably caused the bot to fail intermittently. I restarted the bots, and it seems to have fixed it.—cyberpowerChat:Online 17:48, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 20:30, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
I noticed that, and was trying to figure out if there was a good reason for it; thanks for the explanation and the restart.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:43, 31 January 2016 (UTC)--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:43, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

This seems to be happening again. DH85868993 (talk) 08:30, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

According to the operational logs, this is a separate incident. It appears the MW API is returning an edit conflict error, but is still letting the edit go through. However the response is telling the bot that the edit failed. In those cases, the bot forgoes posting to the talk page. It would seem another MW bug was detected.—cyberpowerChat:Limited Access 16:59, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Example log output:
Analyzing Mercury Rev (84192)...
Rescued: 1; Tagged dead: 0; Archived: 0; Memory Used: 32.75 MB; Max System Memory Used: 240.5 MB
EDIT ERROR: editconflict: Edit conflict detected
Though it could also be an indication of a talk page edit conflict happening.—cyberpowerChat:Limited Access 17:07, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Maria Montazami[edit]

The bot rescued two sourced at Maria Montazami but never posted its notification of archived sources at the articles talk page, like it usually does.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:53, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

The same goes for Andrea Myrander and a lot of other articles as well. While it posts its notifications at some talk pages. Very weird. @Cyberpower678: --BabbaQ (talk) 12:17, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
See section above.—cyberpowerChat:Online 17:48, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Updating watchlist notifications[edit]

Hi Cyberpower, would you look into having Cyberbot update the watchlist notification automatically for RfAs? I know it's a sensitive place, but perhaps the bot could update a cookie and the number within its javascript space that could be transcluded onto the watchlist page? Just a thought. Thanks! Kharkiv07 (T) 18:36, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry I can't. I would need to be an admin. Feel free to support my RfA in the future though. ;-)—cyberpowerChat:Online 20:31, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
No, but you could create a page that you'd have another admin transclude to that page, that's what I was saying. Kharkiv07 (T) 15:10, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I missed your response as a result of the many threads being started here. That sounds like an interesting idea. I'll put it on my list.—cyberpowerChat:Limited Access 16:21, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
It has been done. Thanks for the consideration, though. Kharkiv07 (T) 17:50, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Additional option(s) would be helpful[edit]

I think I mentioned before, but worth mentioning again, how happy I am to see this bot running. It is salvaging a lot of dead links, and that's a great thing.

I have noticed one nit, not a big deal, but I don't have a good solution, and hope you can consider implementing something. The short statement of the problem is that the template left on the talk page has two options for the “checked parameter” and there are other options.

At present, the template is posted with the parameter set to false, which generates the following text string:

Archived sources still need to be checked

That's fine, but if you check, the only other option is to change it to true which generates:

Archived sources have been checked to be working

What do I do if I check and they are not OK? Neither option works. As an additional complication, the template often covers more than one reference, and the answers may be different.

There are other cases:

  • I recently checked one archived link, identified in Talk:Charli_Turner_Thorne, concluded that the archive was done correctly, but the archive existed because USA basketball changed their naming schema, and I would prefer to use the corrected live link, rather than the Internet Archive link. I could technically say true, as I did check, and it was fine, but that doesn't convey the fact that I changed the link.
  • There were two links, I checked one, it was fine, but did not check the other.
  • There were two links, I checked both, one was fine, and replaced the other one with a different source
  • There was one link, it was not fine, so I tracked down a working link.

In each case, I am setting the parameter to true, and adding an explanation, but I don't really like the fact that it says in big bold type that the checked links are working.

I think working out all the possible cases is overkill, but I would like three cases:

  1. Not yet checked
  2. Checked and all are fine
  3. Some or all checked, but some or all not fine, read on for full explanation:

Option three could use some word-smithing.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:04, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

See Template:SourcecheckcyberpowerChat:Online 21:07, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, that helps.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:55, 31 January 2016 (UTC)


Hi, I was wondering since I can't remember if you've already said this or not, but in which order does the bot go through the articles? I know you've said it goes through all articles with {{dead links}}, but is there a specific order, or does it generate the "queue" of articles to check "today" at random or is there asome logic behind it? (tJosve05a (c) 21:14, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

It checks whatever order the API returns it to the bot. I think it may be by pageid.—cyberpowerChat:Online 21:16, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Warning left on my talk page[edit]

Cyberbot left a warning on my talk page about removing an AfD template pertaining to a discussion that I started. I think the message was in error as a result. ElectricBurst(Electron firings)(Zaps) 03:57, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Once it's started the template cannot be removed until it ends. So no error.—cyberpowerChat:Offline 05:06, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Cyberpower678/RfX Report[edit]

I noticed that this template is now the width of the page; is there any way it can be set to display smaller? (Like it did until today :-)) All the best, Miniapolis 16:51, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Fixing the page formatting of that RfA.—cyberpowerChat:Limited Access 16:53, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
The link to the 'crat chat may be the problem; I wonder if a piped link would be possible, but it'll be gone in a bit and things should be back to normal. Thanks for your help and all the best, Miniapolis 18:02, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Odd citation correction[edit]

Hi! Cyberbot II is usually right-on with archive links and adding them to cite templates. But today there was this edit. The link was fine, but I had to look up Wayback because I'd never seen it before. The documentation states that it should never be used in citations, but only in "External links" sections. I fixed it manually, but I thought you might want to know about this behavior.

I see that whoever added the "dead link" template accidentally split the closing bracket of the citation. Would this have affected the bot's adding the wayback template instead of incorporating the archive into the original cite?

Is there any time the wayback template should be used by the bot?

Thanks. — Gorthian (talk) 19:47, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes indeed. Good catch. The bot attempts to keep consistent with accepted formatting policies. That stray bracket does however cause it to misinterpret the citation template as a bare URL, in which case it appends the wayback template to the link. One of the bugs needing to be fixed is the regex that catches the sources on an article, which seems to leave out a good chunk of URLs.—cyberpowerChat:Online 20:04, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Aha. So it thought it was a bare URL, which would ideally be in the "External links" section, so that template would be appropriate. Thanks for the response! And good work! — Gorthian (talk) 20:15, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Bot wars![edit]

I *think* however it might be on Cyberbot this time... See the protect log for 2015–16 Chelsea F.C. season. The pending changes protection ended at 22:21 UTC. MusikBot removed the {{pp-pc1}} at 22:23 UTC, then Cyberbot II added it back, even though the PC had expired. MusikBot again removed it, and seems like Cyberbot is now satisfied. Maybe this is an edge case, not sure? MusikAnimal talk 22:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Could have been a MW caching issue, but out of curiosity, when did MusikBot take up the task Cyberbot II does quickly and well, since 2012?

supercount and hewiki.[edit]

hello Cyberpower678.

so, we have a new namespace in hewiki, called "Gadget" (namespace #2300).

unfortunately, the hebrew name for this namespace is גאדג'ט. note the single quote!

apparently, the supercount tool does not sanitize the namespace names, which cause it to fail: see [2]

tbh, i do not look at my own stats frequently enough to notice (so i have no idea how long the problem existed - prolly ever since the "Gadget" namespace was added to hewiki...), but another user asked me about it, and your name appears as the point-person in the FAQ, so here i am...

peace - קיפודנחש (aka kipod) (talk) 20:09, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

FixedcyberpowerChat:Limited Access 03:45, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Face-smile.svg Thank you very much! peace - קיפודנחש (aka kipod) (talk) 21:46, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Bot down[edit]

Is the bot down? Or will it have another task than archiving dead links from now on?BabbaQ (talk) 22:51, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm working on some new updates to the bot.—cyberpowerChat:Limited Access 03:49, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Cyberbot I/AfD report bug[edit]

There's a really minor issue where the bot will think a page has a redlinked AfD tag when it really doesn't. I think it happens when the tag has spaces between the '=' sign in the parameters, e.g. "page = Title" instead of "page=Title", where it will think the discussion is at "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ Title" (note the space) instead of "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Title", where the template links to. Could you fix this if you have time? As I said, really minor issue. Thanks, ansh666 05:29, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

DeadLinksBot disabled[edit]

Hi Cyberpower678. I disabled DeadLinksBot because it was deleting reference names - see this edit and this one. (I have restored the reference names in those two articles, but no others). Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 08:14, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I have fixed the bug.—cyberpowerChat:Offline 05:37, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Great. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 07:52, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Cyberbot issue with allmusic[edit]

On checking the archive links on Wilco_discography both have a message about TOS issues not an archive copy. Not how many have this issue or if it is still going(edit was dated 16 Jan). Haakonsson (talk) 12:20, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

If that's the case the links need to be replaced. I or Cyberbot really can't do much about that.—cyberpowerChat:Limited Access 16:18, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

RFA-Tally, again[edit]

Just a quickie, Cyberbot I seems to have stopped updating User:Cyberpower678/RfX Report and User:Cyberpower678/Tally overnight. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:57, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

There's a MW bug, I think, that's causing session to be erratic and causes Cyberbot's attempts to edit Wikipedia to fail. I'm discussing it with anomie right now.—cyberpowerChat:Limited Access 16:06, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
And with that the bug has been found and squished and bots have been restarted. Bots should be up and running again.—cyberpowerChat:Limited Access 17:39, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

supercount, again.[edit]

hi. this one is not just hewiki, it's enwiki also. the issue has to do with contributors with contributions in enough namespaces to justify an "other" slice in the pie-chart. clicking any slice expands the namespace list, but the expanded list shows all the namespaces as "Topic", except the first one that reads "Main", and the list becomes practically meaningless. peace - קיפודנחש (aka kipod) (talk) 22:04, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Cyberbot II added article to Pages with URL errors[edit]

Hi Cyberpower678! In this edit, it seems that Cyberbot II's change added the article to Category:Pages with URL errors. Could you please have the bot use |archiveurl= instead? Also, when I go to the archiveurl in that edit, I get an error saying "Wayback Machine doesn't have that page archived", so I removed it from the article. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 23:22, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

That would appear to be a bug. It could be a bad response from the wayback API. I'll have to look closer.—cyberpowerChat:Limited Access 23:45, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Your bot is still adding pages to the maintenance category - see this edit. Would you mind stopping the bot until you can tweak the code? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 01:17, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
When I spot check Cyberbot's other contribs, I don't see that same problem so I think disabling is a bit overkill. I'm still looking for the cause.—cyberpowerChat:Limited Access 01:22, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Here are some more edits (I stopped looking after 10 edits): [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. GoingBatty (talk) 02:33, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
I found a pattern to these edits. I'm looking for the moment the bug arises. Give me a few minutes.—cyberpowerChat:Limited Access 02:35, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Fixed per [13].—cyberpowerChat:Limited Access 03:17, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Two more bad edits that look like they occurred after the fix: [14], [15]. GoingBatty (talk) 21:16, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with those edits.—cyberpowerChat:Online 00:32, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
On Family Guy, the bot changed {{cite web | url =| title = E-Alerts| work = Parents Television Council| accessdate =July 26, 2011}} to {{cite web| |title=E-Alerts |work=Parents Television Council |accessdate=July 26, 2011 |deadurl=yes |archiveurl= |archivedate=July 2, 2001 }} which leaves |url= without http://. I had BattyBot fix it in this edit.
Same issue with the "GreenMind" reference in Woodstock 1999, which I had BattyBot fix in this edit. GoingBatty (talk) 01:54, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
That's because the archive URL omitted it too. Cyberbot doesn't alter links when fixing references. I can however program it to check for missing protocols.—cyberpowerChat:Limited Access 02:07, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
FYI... CheckWiki #62 pick up url's without http://. Bgwhite (talk) 08:31, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

A kitten for you![edit]


Hey can i get your help on my talk page so it looks nicer? I love how you'res looks!

Kody1492 (talk) 20:03, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure I would be helpful. I set this up years ago.—cyberpowerChat:Online 21:12, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
But could you try? Please? I'll give you a cookie!kody1492 Talk 15:19, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
When I have more time perhaps. I just had 5 cookies. :p—cyberpowerBe my Valentine:Limited Access 16:33, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Wayback template in article text[edit]

Hi again! Today, Cyberbot II added three archive links to Rocky Flats Plant, but it used {{Wayback}} instead of the usual {{cite web}}. As I found out a few days back, the Wayback template is supposed to only be used in the "External links" section. These were bare-URL citations, so obviously the bot treated them as external links. But doesn't it check to see if the URL is wrapped in <ref> tags? Do named refs make a difference? I'll go back and fix these manually, but I hope the bot won't be making a lot of this kind of change. Or else I'll be coming to you to ask for a bot that will correct Cyberbot II! ;-) — Gorthian (talk) 22:52, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Cyberbot does not alter the formatting of the source, nor is it approved to do so. A wayback template is used for any external link, including those in references, and uses the citation template's archive parameters if it is present. External links are not just links the "External Links" section of an article. If the bot is to change the format of bare links, it can have unintended consequences. In addition to that, Cyberbot should not be blamed here. If it's supposed to use cite web, for example, then the person, that added the source, should have used it to begin with. :p —cyberpowerChat:Online 23:05, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, they should have (stern voice). I wonder if, finding an external link wrapped in <ref> tags, it would be better if Cyberbot just left those dead links alone? Having now reformatted the three citations in that article, I think the bot did save me one step in the many-stepped process by having working archive links to insert. The {{Wayback}} template produces less-than-desirable results in the list of references, however. But now that I think about it, leaving bare-URL links as they are would be even worse. Never mind.Gorthian (talk) 01:10, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
I brought this up before as well. There's no reason Cyberbot can't convert bare links to a basic cite web template. Or, leave alone. The reason is this: there are other tools to semi-automatically convert bare links to cite web + archive URL. However if the Wayback template is inserted by Cyberbot, those tools won't work and it must be done 100% manual. So it's actually creating more work for someone to later clean up. The best solution is for the bot to make a simple cite web - the idea that anyone might object makes no sense as our guidelines recommend to not use bare links, and there is wide consensus for using citation templates. BTW by "bare links" I mean <ref>http..</ref> or <ref>[http://..]</ref> .. I agree that if it has other text it should be left alone. -- GreenC 15:58, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
I'll look into it. It would seem there is consensus for this. It would require a bit of modification to the bot to implement.—cyberpowerBe my Valentine:Limited Access 16:32, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Did you change it already? Because this is perfect! — Gorthian (talk) 17:52, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Not yet. That's an upgrade/fix from a few days ago. Originally programmed in Cyberbot is to fix external links not in references. Due to a bug, Cyberbot never found external links, until now. Because it is outside of a reference, and because Cyberbot doesn't know where in the article the link could be, it replaces the external link directly to avoid disrupting the formatting of the article. I won't be able to update until tomorrow afternoon. I'm very busy at the moment. I have an exam tonight.—cyberpowerBe my Valentine:Online 21:38, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Good luck with the exam! — Gorthian (talk) 22:00, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Bot leaving {{dead[edit]

Bot has been leaving {{dead inside the cite template, see [16] [17]. Anomiebot then comes along and makes things worse. I don't recall seeing this error before until the past ~4 days. Bgwhite (talk) 08:28, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

That is rather strange, it could be because there is a template for the URL of the cite template. I'm working on updates to resolve it. Do you have more recent examples? I do note I deployed a couple of updates yesterday.—cyberpowerBe my Valentine:Online 14:30, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
CheckWiki runs every day at 0z. So, the two above were from the last run. I'll see if there are any errors after CheckWiki's next run. Bgwhite (talk) 22:06, 10 February 2016 (UTC)


hello Hassuona (talk) 14:40, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi—cyberpowerBe my Valentine:Online 15:02, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

deadlink.php: function getTemplateParameters[edit]

Hi, noticed it's not checking the template for embedded refs or wiki comments. It may not need to but wanted to make sure. -- GreenC 16:02, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Why would it need to check for references in a template? Is reference being embedded in a reference? And what do you mean by wiki comments?—cyberpowerBe my Valentine:Limited Access 16:29, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
You're right I was just testing to see if that would work, it didn't. For comments like:
{{cite web |url= <!-- use https --> |title=etc.. }}
-- GreenC 16:36, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Good catch, that could cause problems especially in link source detection. I'll put in a fix.—cyberpowerBe my Valentine:Limited Access 16:39, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Ok great. I came across it before when running another script. I don't have much experience in PHP so can't offer help with coding but could tell it wasn't checking for ! -- GreenC 16:47, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Blockage in Cyberbot I[edit]

Most likely know this but many tasks on Cyberbot I aren't running, guess this is part of a scheduled upgrade or a strange outage, haven't decided which. Bot's getting much flakier than I remember these past few weeks, WMF stuff with the logins? tutterMouse (talk) 18:07, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Labs deleted the logs Cyberbot writes to causing them to stall. They were trying to truncate large logs but apparently ended up deleting them. I have restarted them, again...—cyberpowerBe my Valentine:Online 22:20, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Khovd (city)[edit]

Hi, further to this edit of yours I have tried to format the ref via cite web but it does not currently work, saying it needs a certificate. Do you know how to incorporate the way back link within the cite web template? Thanks. Eldumpo (talk) 18:50, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

(by talk page stalker) It can't be incorporated directly. When I run across those, I create the cite template from scratch, copying the Wayback URL for the |archive-url parameter. — Gorthian (talk) 19:27, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
@Gorthian: What exactly do you mean by 'create the cite template from scratch'. The wayback url seems to have some kind of extra parameter to access the web page, which I'm not sure how to add. Thanks. Eldumpo (talk) 23:27, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
@Eldumpo: You can use the link that the template makes to go to the archived page (click on the word "Archived" in the ref), and copy the URL from that page to put in the |archive-url parameter of the cite template. By "from scratch", I meant that I either type in the {{cite}} template manually, or use a tool like MakeRef to fill in the fields. — Gorthian (talk) 00:17, 11 February 2016 (UTC)