Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Bots  (Redirected from Wikipedia:BOTN)
Jump to: navigation, search

This is a message board for coordinating and discussing bot-related issues on Wikipedia (also including other programs interacting with the MediaWiki software). Although this page is frequented mainly by bot owners, any user is welcome to leave a message or join the discussion here.

If you want to report an issue or bug with a specific bot, follow the steps outlined in WP:BOTISSUE first. This not the place for requests for bot approvals or requesting that tasks be done by a bot. General questions about the MediaWiki software (such as the use of templates, etc.) should be asked at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical).


Archiving live links - Redux[edit]

I knew I had seen a discussion about this before: it is at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard/Archive 11#Archiving links not dead - good idea? Most of the discussants there (obviously mostly fans of bots) seemed to approve of archiving all the reference links in an article, even the live ones. Some of us less technically oriented editors think the practice can be damaging to articles. Recent example, which is the reason I am bringing it up: With this recent edit to the article Barack Obama, the IABot v1.5.2 archived 392 references, adding 74,894 bytes to the article, and increasing its already huge size by 22.6%, from 330,241 to 405,135 bytes. Is that really something that people here think is a good outcome? (The other editor reverted at my request.) Does the bot offer the option of archiving only the dead links, as some of us non-techie people have requested? --MelanieN (talk) 18:04, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Actually only rescuing dead links is the default behavior. That behavior you linked in the diff has to be requested by the user by checking a checkbox. The checkbox option clearly states that it's optional. As the tool interface's ToS states, edits made on behalf of the user, is the responsibility of the user.—CYBERPOWER (Around) 19:04, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the information. Is there a more appropriate place to discuss whether people should choose that option or not? --MelanieN (talk) 00:39, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
@MelanieN: I am not certain. The best place for this is maybe here or WT:LINKROT.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 16:37, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
If you start a discussion at LINKROT, please post a reminder here. I thought that this page's archived discussion, referenced above, showed considerable support for not adding links to archives unless the original URLs have died. I, too, have been encountering continuing massive, useless additions of such links. Where it adds little text to a small article, I don't revert. However, adding links in the hundreds, with increased byte counts in the high five figures, to an article with high readership, such as the example given above, I do my best to combat it. At Barack Obama, 3/4 of the citations were given useless added cruft at a cost of 75 kbytes. This has got to stop. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:22, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

@Dhtwiki and Cyberpower678: I posted a question about this at Wikipedia talk:Link rot#Using a tool to archive live links. (Although given that project's enthusiasm about archiving, I wonder if that was kind of like asking an insurance salesman if I need more insurance!) --MelanieN (talk) 15:12, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

LOL :D—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 15:14, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
On second thought, maybe I should have taken it to a more general and more visible forum such as Village Pump? --MelanieN (talk) 15:19, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Talked myself into it. The discussion is now at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 56#Using a tool to archive live links. --MelanieN (talk) 15:39, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Proposal for new magic word for short descriptions[edit]

This discussion was spread across multiple pages, including some village pumps, but organically ended up at a dedicated page. However, we are now at (or beyond?) the stage where this again needs wide publicity and participation. Please see the long discussion at Wikipedia talk:Wikidata/2017 State of affairs#Strategies for improving the descriptions and especially the "Proposal from WMF" subsection (currently the bottom one), where a new magic word is proposed and specific implementations of it discussed.

This is a discussion which will potentially impact all articles and affect the first thing all users get to see in mobile view and on apps (and elsewhere), so getting enough input on this is important. I have posted it at WP:CENT, WP:VPPR and WP:AN. Feel free to drop notes at other places.

I have included this noticeboard because, if this proposal or something similar gets accepted, there probably will need to be one or two big bot runs (and perhaps some clever bot programming) across many or all articles.

Please keep the actual discussion in one place if possible. Fram (talk) 07:07, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

NihlusBOT 2[edit]

Hi, I think this got approved too fast, and under a misconception. The BRFA was open for a grand total of 16 minutes, and was closed by a BAG member whose bot's (for lack of a better word) errors are the subject of the task. It was clarified that these are actually supposed to be medium priority lint errors, not high priority like the BRFA states. Pings: @Cyberpower678 and Nihlus:. Legoktm (talk) 07:46, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

I think there is a disproportionate amount of disruption being caused by this pre-emptive attempt to fix possible future minor errors on talkpage signatures all of which date back over a year. People's watchlists are being alerted to these fixes, and folks are then spending time checking out. Better in this case would have been to allow the potential errors to stand, and if they did crop up in the future, to fix them then. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:39, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
When I approved, I was under the impression, this was a high priority fix. I also didn't bother to leave the BRFA open for long since it was a straightforward task. It was registering as a high priority on Special:LintErrors.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 14:57, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
In addition, the watchlist argument is a moot point. As I stated on my talk page: bot edits can be hidden from view within the watchlist, and those that do not want to hide bot edits can learn what it is doing with one look and ignore the rest. – Nihlus (talk) 15:50, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Just a head's up Nihlus - users have been banned for making too many trivial edits. Or, rather, for ignoring the community's concerns regarding making those trivial edits. Perhaps the most notable is Betacommand: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Betacommand 3. Arguments that users can turn off their watchlists, or just need to check a bot's edits the once, are not really seeing this issue from the perspective of the community. You have nothing to be concerned about in regards to this incident, but it is as well to pay attention to concerns from the community. SilkTork ✔Tea time 18:19, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
@SilkTork: That is an extremely inappropriate comparison, especially when you consider a part of it can be considered an aspersion. Also, I am not ignoring the community; I am merely unconvinced by the arguments you presented. – Nihlus (talk) 18:52, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Shouldn't interpret it that way. ST is exactly right, and even stressed "You have nothing to be concerned about in regards to this incident".  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  14:31, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Eh, he's made no attempts to clarify, so if I was interpreting it wrongly, I assume he would have said something. Also, I don't take lightly to vague historical lessons over the misdeeds of others as if I am supposed to learn from it, especially when nothing wrong was done by myself (and especially especially if the user is mentioning blocks right after I expressed disagreement with their assessment). Nihlus 14:48, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

InternetArchiveBot notices about nothing but archive-url additions[edit]

Where's the place to "seek out a community discussion" on "a community bot" (whatever that means) about getting a bot to stop leaving a particular kind of pointless message? The InternetArchiveBot does various things, and even leaves some helpful messages, but when it leaves a note on an articles talk page that all it did was provide an archive-url to a cite that didn't have one, this is pointless, annoying bot-spam. We don't need to know that it did something trivial that no one sane would question, and we already know – anyone watching the article already saw the edit, so now they're getting a second watchlist hit for the same thing for no reason.

I went to the bot's talk page, and it isn't editable except by admins. I got to the author/operator's page, which directed me to file a ticket about it a Phabricator. So I did [1]. The response to that was a testy "The bot is currently approved to run with these message.", which is a silly thing to say. All the bots are approved to do what they do or their operator would be in trouble and the bot would be blocked. I was told "The last discussion regarding them had no consensus for change", which means it has been discussed before and other people are tired of these messages, too. "If you feel the bot should stop leaving messages, please seek out a community discussion. This is a community bot". I see a bot requests page, which seems to be only for asking for bots to do stuff not to stop doing them, and isn't really a discussion page; and the noticeboard, which appears to be for reporting bugs and policy violations.

So, I'm not really sure what the process or venue is. PS: This isn't about ALL InternetArchiveBot notices, just the the no-one-will-care pointless ones.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  12:50, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: Can you please provide some example Diffs below of the edits you have concerns with? — xaosflux Talk 12:58, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Sure, any of these [2]. The bot leaves various messages we do care about, but this one is just wrong. Its instructions that we need to go look at what it did when all it did is add an archive URL (and the same page watchers already saw it do that) makes no sense. (Same goes if it did that and also marked a dead original URL as such). We do want to go look when the bot flags actual problems.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  14:26, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
And to answer your other question, per Wikipedia:Bot_policy#Appeals_and_reexamination_of_approvals, this is the approriate venue to reexamine bot task approvals if your are at an impasse with the operator. — xaosflux Talk 13:10, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
  • WP:VPP would be a good place to discuss. You are proposing a change to IABot after all. I am more than happy to make any changes, but given the runtime of IABot, the changes should have a consensus.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 13:20, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
    If you think proposing a minor change is an "appeal", then ok. I also don't think this needs any bureaucracy; it's just a common sense matter.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  14:26, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
    VPR would probably be better - this doesn't appear to be about changing policy, or at least a link there to here - my initial concern would be if there are out-of-scope edits being made (it does not sound like that is occurring). I agree if this is really just a request to change the currently approved scope it needs to have general community consensus measured. — xaosflux Talk 13:48, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
    I was going to guess VPT, but whatever. Why does this need to be a big process at all, though? "Stop spamming us with double watchlist hits" isn't something we really need to hash over at length is it?  :-) Anyway, thats' four separate venues suggested so far (VPR, VPP, bot appeals, and this board).  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  14:26, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
    (edit conflict)Because other users do not see it as spam. They see it as a meaningful message with a quick link to verify that the bot placed a meaningful archive there, as well as a quick message on how to best deal with bot mistakes.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 14:29, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
    We can make a big thread out of it if you want, but see the thread immediately above this one. The argument that watchlist spamming is no big deal has been firmly shot down by the community.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  14:33, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
    (edit conflict)No argument from me that watchlist spamming is a problem, however, up above was a bot task I approved under the misconception that it was a high priority task, when it turns out it wasn't VS a task that has been approved and been in operation for 2 years doing what it does. Plus it's not really spamming a person's watchlist unless they have every article on Wikipedia watchlisted.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 14:38, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
    I understand the nature of the thread above; what I was referring to was, specifically, the admonition to take community concerns about pointless watchlist-hitting seriously.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  15:15, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
    Argument from me. There are tools that have been built for the supposed watchlist spamming; "I don't want to use it" is not a valid opposing argument. What I will agree with is the talk page spamming itself, as sometimes they can get inundated with bot messages. I don't have a strong opinion of it in either direction though since it does provide a better avenue to check the edit's validity. Nihlus 14:52, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
    Much of that sounds like exactly the reasoning that was just shot down again the thread above this one.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  15:16, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
    @SMcCandlish: It is my view on the matter and has not been "shot down" in any capacity. Please, learn how to politely disagree with someone. Nihlus 16:51, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
    You also reacted with offense when someone in that thread gave you sound advice and a case to examine for why the advice was sound, then you continued to react with umbrage when it was suggested you were misinterpreting the advice as some kind of personal insult. So, I'll pass on this game.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  22:59, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Here is an example of the type of diff SMcCandlish is referring to. It is a notification placed immediately after this edit was made. Primefac (talk) 14:35, 4 October 2017 (UTC) All righty then. Primefac (talk) 14:47, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
    • That's not actually an example, since it has other notices in it, including a claim to have corrected two URLs, which someone may want to check. The example I provided above is, well, an example of what I mean. Here it is again: [3].  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  14:43, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
  • @Pyxis Solitary:: pinging user who's report about this issue at WT:TPG inspired this change request in the first place. PS: Since apparently any of four venues will work and this is one of them, I think we can consider this the demanded discussion being open.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  14:39, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. Pyxis Solitary talk 05:27, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Clearer statement of the issue: The bot's "I added an archive-url" notice (that the bot did something useful, routine, and virtually unbreakable) is directly equivalent to the watchlist notice of the edit itself, and the talk edit makes another watchlist hit, so that's three notifications about an edit that will never be dangerous. In the particular case of "notify upon archive-url", it grossly violates the spirit though not the exact letter of WP:COSMETICBOT – not in making the actual archive url edit, but in pestering us about it. The entire reason we have the COSMETICBOT rule is the pestering effect, and just the watchlist hits alone were annoying enough to cause this rule to be adopted. Now add talk page spamminess, which impedes talk page usability, wastes editors' time, increases talk page archival maint. overhead, etc. Again, I want to stress that this not about IAB notices that may actually require human review/intervention. Still want those.

    Simple pseudocode fix: if $CHANGESBOTMADE == ($ARCHIVEURL or ($ARCHIVEURL + $DEADURLYES)) then $POSTABOUTIT = no – i.e., if it's done anything at all other than that trivia (including that trivia and something non-trivial), then go ahead and post a notice.
     — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  15:04, 4 October 2017 (UTC), clarified 23:05, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

    That is not how I interpret cosmeticbot at all. Cosmeticbot applies to cluttering watch lists with changes that render no visual output change to page. IABot is making visible changes to the page. COSMETICBOT does not apply, IMO.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 15:18, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
    My prediction that someone would focus on the exact wording rather than the underlying reasoning and intent of the rule is exactly why I said "the spirit if not the exact letter of WP:COSMETICBOT". I've now clarified that with some emphasis in my earlier post.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  23:03, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
  • For clarity, completely disagree: archivebot's talk page messages are fine as far as I'm concerned. In other words SMcC has no consensus whatsoever on this. See prior (still open) discussion at Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines#Deleting bot notices. I'd suggest to close this Bots noticeboard thread for obvious forumshopping. Anyway, I'm not prepared to discuss this same issue in two different places at the same time. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:23, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
It isn't forum shopping for the simple reason that the topic arose at a relatively narrow locale Talk:TPG and @SMcCandlish: correctly sought wider input via an appropriate noticeboard, and left a pointer at the original thread saying he had done so. I do the same thing, though I usually mark the original thread closed to prevent this sort of misperception/accusation. I also note there was a couple hours or so between opening this thread and later adding the pointer. I try to post both in quick succession to further reduce avoidable controversy. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:34, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
I'd forgotten about the other thread; that's why the ping to the original raiser of the issue came so late as well. Whether consensus will emerge to make a minor change to this bot's output will be determined by the discussion; it isn't, as Francis seems to suggest, a necessary precondition for the discussion to happen. And no, obviously not forum shopping, since WT:TPG isn't a venue for proposing bot changes (even if respondents to this thread aren't entirely clear what is a good venue for this kind of request). Francis and I have had an on-again-off-again personality dispute dating back to the 2000s, and I've learned not to react much to these jabs from him. PS: The two discussions are actually distinct: this is is about whether to tweak the bot's messaging; the TPG one is about whether to archive or just delete the bot messages when they're old (the off-topic part of it has been closed and pointed at this discussion).  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  22:28, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
  • All of the proposed alternative venues have been notified of this discussion, to centralize.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  22:51, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I am the editor that created the discussion in Wikipedia talk:TPG about bot notices in talk pages. In regards to the InternetArchiveBot and its announcement about modification of external links: what's the point of keeping these notices on an article's talk page after an editor has checked the links and found them okay? Pyxis Solitary talk 05:27, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I for one find the InternetArchiveBot notices useful. Though the bot is getting better, it doesn't always pick the right archive URL and sometimes misclassifies links as dead; it's also quite possible that a link that it detects needs manual updating. The talk page notices, which as far as I know only show up when the bot adds a (possibly invalid) archive URL, are a useful way of keeping track of what it does, and serve to show that a human has indeed OK'd the bot's changes. The notices also serve as a handy way to get to the bot's interface, which I've used several times. Graham87 08:05, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

If an editor checks the modification(s) by the archive bot and finds them to be okay, the value in the bot notice is changed to "true" which indicates that the modifications were correct. If the editor finds a problem, the value is changed to "false".
So ... if the modifications are reviewed and checked as being okay ... what's the point of keeping the notice on the talk pages? (I changed the indentation of my comment directly above yours because it's easily overlooked.) Pyxis Solitary talk 04:05, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
If the editor finds a problem, the value isn't changed to false ... the checked= value only notes whether the links have been checked or not. As for keeping the notices on the pages, I think they can be treated as any other discussion ... and archived if necessary. I feel a bit uneasy about the idea of removing them, as I do for any talk page message ... but I probably have a more extreme view that talk pages should be a record of all discussions than most of the Wikipedia community. Graham87 15:45, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
The "checked" value can be changed to "failed", if some links are found wanting. In the not too distant past, when I was constantly checking the bot's output that affected articles on my watchlist, I used that value as well as listing the failed links underneath. My practice must have been an outlier, but it was due to the prompting of the talk page message that I checked so carefully, and found much that needed checking, before CyberbotII/IABot improved considerably. In any case, I am someone else who thinks the bot's talk page messages helpful, although they might seem verbose, especially when so many of them do go unchecked, and perhaps are less needed as the bot and the internet archives themselves improve. Dhtwiki (talk) 05:41, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
What's disturbing is that I'm still getting false positives. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:52, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
False positive in that IABot declares a link dead when it isn't, or that it thinks an archive snapshot is useful when it isn't? Both can happen and, I think, are both instances of false positives. Dhtwiki (talk) 21:28, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Both are happening. The former is still too common. It happens when the Bot thinks a site is down but it isn't. It used to occur when a site went down temporarily, but now we're getting into weird cases where the Bot cannot connect but apparently the rest of us can. This is usually the Bot's fault, but not always; in one recent case a site was returning at HTML error code but still rendering the page okay. The second is less common but does happen; usually it is the internet archive's fault. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:15, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Agree that these posts are a waste of time and bandwidth I notice ClueBot NG doesn't do the same thing whenever it reverts vandalism. It simply leaves a link in the edit summary asking others to report false positives. I don't see why something similar can't be implemented here - in the example SMC provides, the summary for the edit the bot is referring to simply reads, "Rescuing 1 sources and tagging 0 as dead. #IABot (v1.5.4)". There's plenty of space in there for a link like ClueBot NG leaves. It's one thing to alert users to edits like these, but there's a better way to do it, if it needs to be done at all. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 14:13, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

One difference between ClueBot NG and IABot is that the former bot (usually) decides on the basis of, and reports, vandalism that both fits on one screen and whose vandalistic attributes are immediately apparent (e.g. article text replaced by the word "poopy"). IABot is apt to report many decisions per edit, with changes to text that are apt to be widely strewn throughout the article, and whose validity isn't readily apparent. Therefore, IABot's talk page messages bring a needed synopsis that ClueBot NG usually doesn't need. The idea of having a reporting link, though, is a good one, as I'm not sure that reporting failed links to the talk page ever served well as feedback. Dhtwiki (talk) 21:43, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Agree that it may be worth checking IABot's archive links, so talk page message is not spam. Also the changes should be very close together in time, so should not result in multiple watchlist "events". All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:28, 17 October 2017 (UTC).
    At present the error rate for the IABot is low, but still too high to trust it, so its actions still really do need checking. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:15, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Close as Working as intended. The bot does have misfires from time to time, so putting the summary on the talk page (to try and flag down human attention) is appropriate. However once the report has been reviewed by a human and corrected, there's no need for the post on the talk page any more, so it can safely be archived. This seems like a rule creep that is going to open a lot of worm cans that would be best left alone. Hasteur (talk) 02:21, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Most reports aren't checked. Even I don't do that any more. And when I did do it, I'd leave notes as a reply, sometimes to encourage further checking. So, no need to archive these messages, at least not faster than normal talk page archiving. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:37, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

AvicBot and G13[edit]

AvicBot used to list pages from Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as abandoned AfC submissions at User:AvicBot/AfCCSD. However, apparently the list stopped being updated because the category was renamed to "Candidates for speedy deletion as abandoned drafts or AfC submissions" per an RfC that expanded the scope of G13. The bot needs to be updated to use the new category name to prevent the list from being permanently empty. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 23:15, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Have you tried asking @Avicennasis: about this? — xaosflux Talk 00:42, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
@GeoffreyT2000: Fixed Thanks! Avicennasis @ 05:20, 26 Tishrei 5778 / 05:20, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Discussion related to double redirect-fixing bots[edit]

There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Double redirects#The bots should operate with a delay where the input of bot operators, particularly those who operate bots which fix double redirects, would be useful. Note that the section contains multiple ideas (not just the one in the section title), but not yet any firm proposals. Thryduulf (talk) 16:44, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

AutoEd and trivial changes, at least one of which is against guidelines[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please see Wikipedia talk:AutoEd#Two bad edit types: changing spaced en dashes to unspaced em dashes, against MOS:DASH; changing page and other numeric ranges like 1901–1911 to 1901–11, which is against the spirit if not letter of MOS:NUM. The fact that the rule to full numbers was only applied to the "Dates" section at MOSNUM is an oversight, which has been fixed (I expect the fix to stick, because all the reasoning about date ranges also applies to other ranges). The rest of what this tool is doing needs closer examination under the style guidelines and WP:COSMETICBOT.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  23:39, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: the example edit was not made by a bot, so this isn't really the best venue to get a resolution. — xaosflux Talk 00:38, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
See response at the original thread to avoid forking. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:48, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WP 1.0 bot and Draft: links[edit]

Wikipedia_talk:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Index#Draft_links may be of interest. If noone more experimented with Wikimedia bots can look into it, I could ultimately, but I have not yet looked for its code and have no experience with the APIs involved yet. The previous maintainers are inactive. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 01:21, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I have notified the operators, lets see if they reply. If the operators do not reply the only direct options are live with the errors, or block the bot - a new operator could take over in the future. — xaosflux Talk 01:33, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
This reminds me that there appears to be a problem with notifications; it'll likely be a good idea to ping again those involved once this issue is solved. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 11:31, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
I left direct talk page messages, and emails. — xaosflux Talk 12:14, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RFC on automatic archiving of long user talk pages[edit]

This may interest many of you. Please comment. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:29, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Portal: Current Event origin bot is not working[edit]

Moved from Wikipedia:Bot requests: Nihlus 00:57, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Portal: Current Event origin bot is not working - normally the bot creates the template for the day as it did here
  • but as of OCT 1, 2017 a new daily template has been being made and now it is creating an end space on the Portal page each day - I tried to fix it for just two days and was successful, BUT, now those two days don't agree with the daily portal of the others since Oct 1, 2017--2600:8800:FF0E:1200:F4A0:C59D:9AC4:A409 (talk) 12:39, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi A409, are you referring to page creations by User:Cyberbot_I? If you have you tried contacted the operator, cyberpower678? — xaosflux Talk 01:29, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  • @Cyberpower678: - help please--2600:8800:FF0E:1200:F4A0:C59D:9AC4:A409 (talk) 04:20, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  • So what is the problem here? I'm lost.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 13:12, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
    • @Cyberpower678: If I am understanding correctly, the spaces in-between the different days/boxes on Portal:Current events/Inclusion is caused by recent changes. I haven't tracked down those changes, but eliminating the empty lines between the different {{Portal:Current events/{{#time:Y F j|{{{1|{{CURRENTYEAR}}}}}-{{{2|{{CURRENTMONTH}}}}}-{{{3|{{CURRENTDAY}}}}}}}}} should solve the problem. It's fully protected, otherwise I would do it. Nihlus 15:48, 13 October 2017 (UTC)