User talk:Cyberpower678/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

Senior Editor II

Cyberbot II making multiple edits in a row to the same article

When pending changes protection was changed from level 1 to level 2 on Wikipedia:Pending changes/Testing/5, Cyberbot II made two edits in a row to fix the tag, instead of just one. Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:07, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm working on a rewrite.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 10:48, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Where is the blacklist?

I am questioning why the bot is tagging some pages as blacklisted. This Wired magazine article seems like legitimate journalism to me and this statement from the United States White House seems okay to cite also, but the bot did not like them.

Who is making the blacklist? What are the criteria for inclusion into this list? Blue Rasberry (talk) 02:30, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Click the links in the box.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 02:31, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Help me out a bit more. Here is the article of my concern - Access2Research. Here is the edit the bot made. The bot seems to not like any link with the word "petition" in it. If that is the criteria for tagging, I have to assert that this is not a legitimate criteria because good sources can have that word in the url. Is that in fact the criteria for tagging links as bad? Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:26, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I do not determine what qualifies as spam. Administrators do that. MediaWiki's spam blacklist contains regex fragments that determine what to mark as spam. There is an entry listing the word petition. A discussion has been brought up to remove this badly written fragment from the list. You can find this link in another thread on this talk page.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 15:37, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Blacklist tag.

Hi, this bot placed a blacklist tag on Trams in Melbourne, I've searched both blacklists and can't find the website listed. Is this a mistake in which case I can remove the tag? Or is the website on the blacklist, and if so, why? Liamdavies (talk) 12:04, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

\bguy\.com\b is what triggered the bot. You'll need to consult the admin that added to find out why.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 13:30, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Does that mean the the site is infact blacklisted? Or is this a mixup? How would I find out what admin added the site? Liamdavies (talk) 10:09, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I can't answer that for you. Sorry.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 10:35, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Added here. Maybe it's trying to catch the domain "guy" itself (and any subdomains) rather than any domain that has "guy" as the last of several words? DMacks (talk) 10:45, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Then in order to fix that, the regex needs to be more specific, be placed on the whitelist, or exceptions list, or be removed from the blacklist entirely.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 10:50, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Does this mean that I can remove the tag or not? Liamdavies (talk) 14:49, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

You can, if you want. The bot will simply keep retagging it though until it doesn't see it as blacklisted anymore.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 15:34, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, how would one get it un-blacklisted? This really does seem like an issue that should be sorted out. Is this bot new? The link in question has been on the page for years, so I don't see why this is now a problem. Liamdavies (talk) 17:40, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the bot is new. It is still in its trial stages. To get a link to not be marked as spam, you'll need to contact an administrator that manages the MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. They can then sort it out for you.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 17:44, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

If the blacklisting of "guy.com" results in tagging articles with links to "cable-car-guy.com" or any other "foo-guy.com" links, it seems like a bot error. How many sites would have to be entered on the whitelist or exceptions list to make up for that kind of error? Unlike "foo.guy.com," "foo-guy.com" is in a different domain than "guy.com".--Hjal (talk) 17:52, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

It's not a bot error. The bot only tags pages containing links that match positively to the links. The regex would need to be refined more to reduce false positives.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 17:55, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Maybe this bots full approval should be held back until this happens? I would also suggest that talk and file pages be exempt, the bot has thrown tags on places that they really aren't needed here and here, and is targeting the sources of film posters here. What is the deal with sourcing of non-free images? Is it wise to be removing the source as this user did to get the tag removed? Liamdavies (talk) 18:05, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Bot approval is determined by whether the bot is operating as it should, not if there are false positives due to faulty regexes. As a matter of fact, this has actually prompted a few discussion on refining the regexes in the blacklist. These false positives the bot is throwing out are also affecting the spam blacklist filter and inhibiting addition of further links. Also I have already added the file space to exemption list. You can see all the pages that are excempt at User:Cyberpower678/spam-exception.js.—cyberpower ^Chat_{Limited Access} 18:12, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Folks, this is not the fault of the bot itself. The bot is just doing what it was told. The problem appears to lie with the people who are making up the "blacklist filter", which the bot just enforces. Somebody told the filter to blacklist any domain containing "guy", and that is producing numerous false positives. (In my case it was an innocent academic site hosted by "geology-guy".) Both cases have been called to the attention of the people at the whitelist site, and hopefully they will sort it out eventually. In the meantime, don't beat up on the bot or the bot owner. Computers are very smart, but they are also very stupid: they only do what they are told. --MelanieN (talk) 18:15, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Finally someone someone understands. ;-)—cyberpower ^Chat_{Limited Access} 18:16, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I should clarify, I know the bot is simply doing it's job. When I said "Maybe this bots full approval should be held back until this happens?" that was in regards to "The regex would need to be refined more to reduce false positives." in that there are going to be problems (such as posted here) until that happens. My pointing to the talk and file matters was to draw attention to an issue, not beat up on a fellow contributor. I apologise if it came of as anger, it was probably more frustration, and seeing the future mess on your talk page if these minor issues (mainly to do with a faulty blacklist, rather than a bot doing what it's told) don't get sorted before the bot goes live. Liamdavies (talk) 18:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually false positives can be beneficial to fixing regex issues that weren't apparent earlier.—cyberpower ^Chat_{Limited Access} 18:45, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Several false positives have been identified here; do we know if anyone is trying to fix them? Or what does it take to get that process started? --MelanieN (talk) 23:37, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Only administrators can change the blacklist and whitelist. Preferably the administrators that make the changes to the list should be contacted. There is currently a discussion regarding the petition regex that is causing the bot to flag any link with the word petition in it as spam.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 23:42, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Copying this over from MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#petition, I've figured out what the issue is. The MediaWiki spam-blacklist only matches within the domain name, while User:Cyberbot II matches anywhere in the url. TDL (talk) 23:11, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think this is what the problem is. The regex engine is identical to the blacklist engine.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 23:16, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Well the two engines are producing different results, so there's obviously something different. This is likely related to this bug.

What exactly do you attempt to match with the bot? If you look at the documentation for the blacklist fiilter, it states that it matches "!http://[a-z0-9\-.]*(line 1|line 2|line 3|....)!Si". Unless I'm missing something, that wouldn't pick up anything after a "/". I'm presume your bot's code doesn't have this line, and instead just searches for the raw regexs from the blacklist, which means it will pick up anything in the url, rather than just in the domain name.

So for example, the blacklist filter "\bpetition(?:online|s)?\b" doesn't prevent me from saying http://praguemonitor.com/2012/09/24/presidential-candidate-jakl-launches-petition-his-bid, but yout bot tags it. If I try and add a url with "petition" before the .com it gets caught by the filter. TDL (talk) 23:50, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

You are incorrect. The regexes are generated exactly like the extension generates it.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 00:07, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I've copied this over to Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Cyberbot_II_4#Trial as that seems like a better place to discuss this. TDL (talk) 00:08, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I've reverted it. Cross-posting only causes me confusion. Here's the regex generator:

function buildRegexes( $lines, $batchSize=4096 ) {
    # Make regex
    # It's faster using the S modifier even though it will usually only be run once
    //$regex = 'https?://+[a-z0-9_\-.]*(' . implode( '|', $lines ) . ')';
    //return '/' . str_replace( '/', '\/', preg_replace('|\\\*/|', '/', $regex) ) . '/Sim';
    $regexes = array();
    $regexStart = '/[a-z0-9_\-.]*';
    $regexEnd = getRegexEnd( $batchSize );
    $build = false;
    foreach( $lines as $line ) {
        if( substr( $line, -1, 1 ) == "\\" ) {
            // Final \ will break silently on the batched regexes.
            // Skip it here to avoid breaking the next line;
            // warnings from getBadLines() will still trigger on
            // edit to keep new ones from floating in.
            continue;
        }
        // FIXME: not very robust size check, but should work. :)
        if( $build === false ) {
            $build = $line;
        } elseif( strlen( $build ) + strlen( $line ) > $batchSize ) {
            $regexes[] = $regexStart .
                str_replace( '/', '\/', preg_replace('|\\\*/|u', '/', $build) ) .
                $regexEnd;
            $build = $line;
        } else {
            $build .= '|';
            $build .= $line;
        }
    }
    if( $build !== false ) {
        $regexes[] = $regexStart .
            str_replace( '/', '\/', preg_replace('|\\\*/|u', '/', $build) ) .
            $regexEnd;
    }
    return $regexes;
}

I don't speak PHP, but looking at your source code would appear to confirm that my suspicion was correct. Where is the http:// tacked on to the front of all the regexs? The only mention of "http" in your code is commented out. Unless you deal with this later in your code, your bot will find all matches of "[a-z0-9\-.]*($line)" and not "http://[a-z0-9\-.]*($line)" as the blacklist filter does. Looks like the error is with the line $regexStart = '/[a-z0-9_\-.]*'; which should read $regexStart = '/http://[a-z0-9_\-.]*'; to be consistent with what the filter is doing. TDL (talk) 00:51, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

The documentation is out of date. I will repeat, I downloaded the extension and installed it into my script as is. This is how the extension is configured.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 00:55, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree that this bot is tagging things beyond what it should. Featured Article William Wilberforce was tagged with this tag simply because a googlebook search string had the word "petitions" in it. The spam filter is not triggered by these search strings... I tested it by trying to reinsert the search string and it saved without problem.[1]. Test it yourself and see. I realize that this bot can probably be very helpful but think some fixes are in order first. --Slp1 (talk) 01:46, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

What fix do you propose? The http part is omitted for very good reasons.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 01:50, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, well then why does your code differ from the code provided by the repository? It has the line:

$regexStart = $blacklist->getRegexStart();

where your problematic line is.

This function getRegexStart is defined as:

public function getRegexStart() {
       return '/(?:https?:)?\/\/+[a-z0-9_\-.]*(';
   }

All of which suggests that you need to add an "(?:https?:)?\/\/+" to the line as I suggested above to get results consistent with the filter. This error would certainly explain the observed symptoms. TDL (talk) 01:54, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Now we are getting somewhere. It would seem that I have an outdated copy of the filter engine. I'll make the change once I have access to labs again. Looks like I made a fuss for nothing. 9_9 My apologies.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 02:01, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Hasty tagging

Nothing big because this is still hypothetical, but just notifying of a potential vulnerability. I just added a {{pp-pc1}} tag in my sandbox and Cyberbot II removed it in 8 seconds. If I were you, I'd add a delay of something like 30 minutes so that a vandal on a spree can't abuse it. (The purpose of a long delay for applications like STiki that see vandalism from far back.) So far it's been easy to mass rollback IP-hopping vandals, but that might not last long. Ginsuloft (talk) 18:59, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) WP:BEANS! That's the kind of thing you should say privately. But yes, I agree. Jackmcbarn (talk) 00:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Alan Turing

Your bot keeps tagging Alan Turing references as potential spam links. They do not appear to be so. Your bot has been reverted 3 times in a row by 3 separate editors. That's the danger zone, bot or no bot. Seriously, you should implement a check to see if its already made the exact same edit. Or something. Int21h (talk) 09:48, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

That's intentional. Read the tag more clearly.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 10:38, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

RfX template

Is it possible to view the template without the "last updated" message below? Thanks. Mohamed CJ (talk) 06:02, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Set the showtimestamp parameter to false.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 10:40, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Worked, thank you. I didn't know there was a showtimestamp parameter, perhaps some documentation at the template page could help? Mohamed CJ (talk) 21:47, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Huffington Post blacklisted?

This edit reports 'huffingtonpost.com' is on a blacklist, but I don't see it explicitly on either of the blacklists mentioned. Is this intentional or the result of an overly-vague regex buried somewhere? K7L (talk) 15:54, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

It's the word petition that set it off. The bot should remove it when it starts up for it's next run.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 16:18, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I hope that you mean the word petition was removed from the bot due to the high percentage of false positives and not that the bot will remove the link to the huffington post. I was just coming to mention I noticed a couple of the petition problems as well but I see its already been mentioned. Kumioko (talk) 18:13, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

There are no words stored in the bot to begin with. It solely reads the blacklist. The problem was the blacklist regex generator was old and reading the regexes wrong. The generator has now been updated to fix that and the tag should go away on the next run.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 18:23, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Great thanks. Kumioko (talk) 18:39, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

CyberBot II: misidentified spamlink?

Hi there Cyberpower, I removed a spam-links template on unmanned aerial vehicle because I could not find the link the bot flagged as spam on the linked spam blacklists, and it seemed to be a reputable organization. Cheers, - J-Mo ^{Talk to Me} _{Email Me} 17:57, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Another petition one. See the above threads.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 18:24, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Cyberbot Exceptions page

Because of User:Cyberpower678/spam-exception.js, your bot is causing hundreds of pages to be added needlessly to Wikipedia:Database reports/Articles containing links to the user space, why is a specific exceptions page needed beyond MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist and what can you do to sort this problem?--Jac16888 ^Talk 18:23, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

To control namespace tagging and specific pages or URLs.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 18:29, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't answer my question - what are you going to do to fix this, particularly since your bot seems to be having a lot of false positives--Jac16888 ^Talk 18:33, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

The false positives problem is being fixed right now as the bot is purging the database of good links. It will then remove the unjustified tags on its own. As for the remaining tags, they'll have to be white listed or the links be removed. I could alternatively change the link to a Wikipedia space page that redirects to the exceptions list.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 18:37, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

More sensible would be if the page was in the wikipedia space, the idea of a spam links exceptions page controlled by just one person does not sound appropriate--Jac16888 ^Talk 18:40, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Huh? Any administrator can alter that page.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 18:50, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Not the same though is it, the page is "yours", or at least as close as a wikipedia page can get--Jac16888 ^Talk 18:52, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

The reason why it's in a js is so that only administrators and I can modify it.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 18:58, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Still not sure I support the notion, but very well, could you do the Wikipediaspace redirect please--Jac16888 ^Talk 19:02, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 20:15, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Help Regrading New Pages Feed

Hi,

When I click on the new pages feed, there is no review button. There is also no, curate this page under teh toolbox. The curation bar does not appear either. Please could I ask for your help on this?

Thanks :) MrBauer24 (talk) 15:16, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

That's not my specialty. Sorry.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 15:27, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

ActiveStats at Wikidata

Hi Cyberpower, regarding the stats that are generated at d:User:Cyberpower678/ActiveStats for Wikidata, I believe the number of admin actions are not adding up correctly. For example, Amire80 is reported to have done only 4 actions in ActiveStats. However, they have actually performed 10. 7 deletions since 1 March and 3 contributions to Mediawiki space. Is there a way to fix this? Thanks. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 00:42, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

If you ask me, lab's databases where goofing up. I just simulated the exact queries it uses to retrieve data and the numbers match your figures. It look like the databases were intermittent.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 01:07, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok, hopefully the databases will begin to work properly soon. In the meantime, ActiveStats is still a good indicator of how active an admin is. It may be a good idea to have a note at the top of the page informing people that the numbers may not match exactly and that a manual check is advisable. I fell into this trap yesterday by requesting the removal of admin rights for 2 admins that actually just passed the criteria :( (10 actions rather than 4, and 13 actions rather than 9). Del_♉sion23 (talk) 11:58, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry

I put a CSD using TW on a page that had been deleted through AfD but was recreated by a bot. I guess that notification led to you somehow? – Muboshgu (talk) 01:10, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how my bot has to do with it.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 01:12, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

[2] Ginsuloft (talk) 07:42, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Spam links template

I've just seen the spam links for the first time, and I'm concerned that it is absurdly huge for placement on an article. The sheer size of the thing acts as a "spam banner of shame" that clutters up the top of the article in a way that most maintenance templates don't. Would you consider either putting it on the talk page or just notifying the person who added the link in the first place? Thanks. -- Mrmatiko (talk) 08:14, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm working on a new design.—cyberpower ^Chat_{Limited Access} 12:10, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm also very concerned about the accuracy of the bot. I took the first page of "what links here" links for the template, ignored all the talk pages (~20), and went through the articles to check how accurate this was. From this fairly small sample (~30 articles) half were blatantly incorrectly tagged - so I've reverted the changes, and with many of the others the issue with the links shouldn't be spam. Either the source material is poor, in which case the blacklists have become full of non-spam links, or the parameters that the bot is working by are much too expansive, in which case that definitely needs fixing. -- Mrmatiko (talk) 12:24, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

The reflex scanner was fixed to generate reflexes exactly as the extension does. Any false positive is a result if the blacklist.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 12:36, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:BADAFD

I see that User:Cyberbot I has picked up the Bad AFD list from Snotbot - great! Thank you. But it looks like the bot may have found some false positives (as per this diff). The articles listed as having redlinked AFD templates all seem to have correct links to an open deletion debate. And there are not intervening edits where somebody fixed a link after the bot came around - some of these have been correct since they were nominated, near as I can tell. Could you doublecheck? The other listings appear to have been correct, it's just that section that seems off. Thanks! UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:20, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not all too familiar with python, but it might have to do with the Pywikipedia installation. I offered to host them so the tasks live on. I'll have a look later today.

OK, thanks! UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:16, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Chris G bots

Hi. Did you get anywhere with taking over the bots previously run by Chris G, specifically GA bot (talk · contribs) and RFC bot (talk · contribs)? The GA one has in particular caused a minor kerfuffle as the instructions currently assume the bot just runs and everything works. I've had a quick look at the code for GA bot and a significant problem I'd have running it is rewriting it a little bit so it doesn't have a direct dependency on Toolserver. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:45, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

He has not yet supplied me with the codes.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 14:41, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

It looks like RFC bot got logged out somehow and has been editing via IP until it got blocked today. (see [3]) It also looks like Chris has left for a wikibreak. Have you made any progress on getting the codes and stuff? (I have no idea what I'm talking about here...) ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:52, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Moderator - lesson learned?

I see that you spent some time as a moderator Talk:Tea Party movement/Moderated discussion. I'm in favor of using moderated discussions, so am interested in your feedback on how it went. I did see your "Stepping down" statement, but I am curious if you did any other sort of "Lesson learned summation"?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:17, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

A few things I learned about moderatorship, well first, being an admin really helps. It makes enforcing decisions easier. Next up, being a moderator is a daunting task. You constantly have to follow discussions, and the back and forth conflicts and try to solve them in a manner everyone agrees on. I know that's not always going to happen, which means you will receive disputes. I can also imagine a few questioning your judgement if it doesn't agree with theirs. Also it's important to stay focused. The discussions can tend to sway in a direction that isn't the correct one. It is always important to stay objective and ignore your opinionated judgements and make decisions based on fact alone. I hope this helps.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 20:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it does help. Two more questions, if I may. You said being an admin helped. I can imagine three reasons why this might be the case. One is that you actually had to use the tools. Second is that you didn't have to use the tools, but the implicit thread that they could be used was useful. Third, for better or for worse, being an admin carries some weight with some editors. Is it any of these, or something else?

Second question. I'm working on a model which would include what I will call "heavy-handed " moderation, in which a moderator wouldn't simply implore participants to stay on topic, but might actually remove posts which are veering off-topic. My guess is that you didn't actually do that, but I'd be curious to know if you did. (You don't need to tell me that it wouldn't be viewed favorably, I think I have an answer for that.) In general, a moderated discussion gives more authority to the moderator, in contrast to many of our DR processes (Arbcom excepted), when all participants are (in theory_ on the same standing. I'm trying to determine to what extent you used your privilege position. (I realize this sounds like a "gotcha" question, and I don't know if you know me well enough to know it is not. I think there is a place for discussion where not all parties have the same standing, and a moderated discussion is one of the few examples of such a process. I'm trying to learn the extent to which that privilege is exercised.)--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:50, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)To the answer your first question, that admin bit helps because it allows you to enforce decisions such as Topic Bans. That's the primary reason to it. Some editors are cautious to respect admins when they impose a topic ban because they have the ability to block. As a non-admin, I can't do that, however, I am within my rights to request an admin act on my behalf as moderator, as long as the admin sees it as reasonable, which makes point two somewhat moot. Point 3, is irrelevant if the editors accept you as moderator, which in my case they did. Admin or not, it's all about the acceptance, just like ArbCom. As an admin, you do have more weight in discussions to become a moderator, but your rights as moderator are the same no matter what. That's at least how I see it. I hope that makes sense.

To answer the second, as a moderator, you have more "power". Like the admin bit, that can go to your head, and alter your judgement. However, that power is useless if no one accepts you as moderator. So it's kind of a safeguard. I tended to be more patient. The most I did was request an editor to be more careful, and have an admin edit through the fully protected page. My moderatorship of that page was short lived though due to the ArbCom case. Based on what I've seen, moderators can temporarily topic ban someone from the page in question, is primarily in charge of deciding the course of action, and controlling the discussion within the limits of the page rules. I haven't had to intervene on discussions regarding civlity, or off-topic concerns, nor did I topic ban anyone. I did make decisions though, and admittedly, made erroneous. It's part of the learning experience. Hope that helps too.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 21:27, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, very helpful. I did notice how the request for editing through protection was handled, after a false start, it was well-done. The power aspect is imprtant, have to worry about Lord Acton, I'll have to think on that a bit.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 22:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Book Report generator

I've been informed by User:PartTimeGnome that you're now handling the book report generation. The generated reports, however, still point to his as the page to "(r)eport bugs and suggestions for improvements".

Anyway, the following subsection is the content of a report I filed there yesterday. Thanks for your attention... — Cbbkr (talk) 23:09, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

book report can't handle proper wikilink

Status:  New:

Task: Book reports

User: Cbbkr (talk · contribs)

Time: 00:55, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Where: Book talk:Star Trek: Voyager

Discussion: The report generator flags as a redlink a proper wikilink of the form ''[[Star Trek: Voyager]]'', but accepts an improper wikilink in the form [[Star Trek: Voyager|''Star Trek: Voyager'']].

Book report generation is now done by Cyberbot I, operated by cyberpower678. Bugs should be reported on his talk page. – PartTimeGnome (talk | contribs) 20:40, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I'll have a look. It may take some time though.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 23:14, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

The cause is that ''[[Star Trek: Voyager]]'' is the improper form. In books, you must use [[Star Trek: Voyager|''Star Trek: Voyager'']]. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:45, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Should that be fixed?—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 15:48, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

If you want to implement a "bad title format" thing, go ahead. The format is detailed here. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:53, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Update: Few questions

Talkback. --Ricordisamoa 21:38, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

blacklisting links

Hello hello

This message concerns the page dedicated to a small NGO working on the protection of the lebanese heritage in Lebanon. The NGO is called : The "Association for the Protection of the Lebanese Heritage" Recently two links were blacklisted. Unfortunately we are no Wiki experts and do not know how to put those links on the wiki whitelist but they are two very legitimate links. One of them comes actually from the dailystar a respected english newspaper in Lebanon. Kindly help us to remain visible and credible to others by whitelisting those links. YOur help is appreciated. Many thanks... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iucncanada (talk • contribs) 20:20, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

You'll need to point me to the page.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 02:49, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit Count

Hi, I was pointed here by Technical 13, with regard to the edit counter. When I click on 'Edit Count', in contributions, I go to the old page, here, as opposed to this one. Can you help? Thanks, Matty.007 20:19, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

???—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 20:21, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

The "old page" link you gave works; the new one is a 404. And why are you calling the labs one old, and the toolserver one new? Isn't toolserver going away and being replaced with labs? Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:57, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Works for me, and I'm not calling the labs one old. I never said it was old.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 21:59, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Odd. Also, by "you" I meant Matty, not you. Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:16, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 22:18, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

The toolserver one included does give a 404. Ive tried using my link and its also gives a 404. Labs is the better more up to date version anyway. When is deleted edits finally coming though.Blethering Scot 22:20, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Well I poked them about 11 days ago. They responded with, "oops, we forgot." :/ Won't be for another few more weeks at least. -.-—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 22:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Funny that sounds about right for around here.Blethering Scot 22:26, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

The first link takes me to a page which says "Matty.007 - X!'s Edit Counter - X!'s tools", and the second (this) didn't work in the other link I gave, for whatever reason. So it will be fixed in a few weeks? Thanks, Matty.007 16:15, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Jackmcbarn: I called the first one old as it still doesn't have deleted edits, as opposed to the second one. Matty.007 16:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

The first one which you call old is actually the new one and is the correct link its supposed to take you to. The toolserver support is being wound down and has been replaced by labs and as shown yesterday when it was down toolserver is experiencing constant tech problems. As cyber says deleted edits is being added to labs soon where it was not available to begin with due to i believe potential legal problems.Blethering Scot 16:59, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Matty.007 18:59, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Signature

Hi! I just wanted to let you know that Cyberbot's signature is pretty hard to read. The username portion of the sig is okay; it's the stacked "notify"/"online [or offline, etc.]" that are particularly hard to read. It took me a good chunk of time to figure out what it said. Would you consider changing it to somehow make it more readable? Thanks. — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 18:43, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit conflicts again

The problem I previously reported at User talk:Cyberpower678/Archive 12#Cyberbot II not handling edit conflicts correctly happened again here. Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:22, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Bug?

It looks like there's a bug in the analysis of whether there is a dupe report at an RfA. If you start here, you should be able to follow the thread. Thanks for looking into it.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:28, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

A930913's talk page

I can't quite see why you reverted me on User talk:A930913. I'm one of the most active stalkers of that talk page and reply to the majority of BracketBot related issues; A930913 isn't all that active. If that wasn't just an accident, I'd be grateful for an explanation of what you felt was wrong with that edit. Huon (talk) 01:19, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Everything about is wrong. :p Actually it was a misclick. Sorry about that.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 01:21, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Petition

Could you please soon go through all the tagged articles, and remove the template from those where that petition-rule was matched (e.g. Manually or with AWB). Those wrong bot taggi gs lead to a lot of wrong whitelist requests, and seemingly also some editor agitation because they are annoyed 'their' links seem blacklisted, and unnecessary cluttering of both pages and maintenance. Please don't wait for the bot to get to them. Thanks! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 04:42, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

They should already be removed.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 10:56, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, I came here shortly after I answered MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist#dailystar.com.lb.2FCulture.2FTravel-and-Tourism.2F2011.2FNov-09.2F153409-ngo-petitions-to-protect-alleged-phoenician-wall.ashx.23axzz20djNikM0 and MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist#archaeologynewsnetwork.blogspot.co.uk.2F2011.2F11.2Fngo-petitions-to-protect-phoenician.html.23.UAH7dPUn2KI, which both seem to be tagged by the 'petition rule'. I see now that there is also MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist#king5.com.2Fnews.2Flocal.2FVigil-Petitions-Aimed-at-Freeing-Jason-Puracal-167930795.html. I presumed they were/are precipitated by tags .. I will have a second look. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:45, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/California_Innocence_Project_(CIP) .. http://www.king5.com/news/local/Vigil-Petitions-Aimed-at-Freeing-Jason-Puracal-167930795.html is not blacklisted. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:49, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Same goes for http://archaeologynewsnetwork.blogspot.co.uk/2011/11/ngo-petitions-to-protect-phoenician.html#.UAH7dPUn2KI and http://www.dailystar.com.lb/Culture/Travel-and-Tourism/2011/Nov-09/153409-ngo-petitions-to-protect-alleged-phoenician-wall.ashx#axzz20djNikM0, linked from Association for the Protection of the Lebanese Heritage. Since I can save the links here (where they are new), they are also not blacklisted. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:50, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

It looks like the bot didn't remove everything for some reason. I'll take a looksee.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 10:47, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

The bot crashed during the removal process. I obviously need to stabilize the framework.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 21:38, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Could you otherwise just AWB all the pages with the template, and remove all of them where the template mentions any instances of the word 'petition'. The bot can then re-tag the ones which are rightfully tagged .. I am afraid we will get more and more of these requests, and probably even repeated requests on the same page (that being said, I have no clue how many pages there are with wrongly tagged links .. ). The editors who are requesting already sound somewhat annoyed that we had the audacity to blacklist good stuff .. not good for morale on the whitelist pages (and we could use just more help there ...). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:27, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I would, except I don't know how to use AWB. :-( Can you help me out?—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 10:34, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I do know how to use it .. but I don't have time. Can you re-run Cyberbot on the rest? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:57, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes I can. I have another approved trial. You can track it's status here. It's approaching another tagging phase soon.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 14:14, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

All bad tags should be purged now. I made sure of it.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 02:26, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:58, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Book report updating

This is being updated wrong. Wikipedia namespace pages can't be assessed, and are hence N/A, not Unassessed. Thanks. -- ^t numbermaniac ^c 05:16, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

So, I did what it appeared I was meant to do

Cybertbot II was double posting. So I probably shut it off. You reverted that change pretty much instantly. How do I know you have solved the problem, though, please? Fiddle Faddle 15:12, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

You never stated there was a problem. Links and diffs help.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 15:14, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Your "instructions" are lacking somewhat, are they not, in that case. I stated that there was a problem. You simply reverted without even asking a question.

::You also made this reversion with no comment.

As for diffs, this one ought to be sufficient for you to sort the bot out. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Limoges&curid=177195&diff=574330134&oldid=574285204 Fiddle Faddle 15:22, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

See also https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Foreskin_restoration&curid=67220&action=history Fiddle Faddle 15:28, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2)They are not lacking. Read the bot page. It tells you to disable the task and contact the operator. You posted something on the run page which will corrupt my bot. As for the diff, I'm looking into it now.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 15:31, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Also please don't post segments. It floods my inbox and makes it hard for me to reply.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 15:32, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok. I have found the bug. Not everything was renamed when the template was.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 15:47, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Bot restarted.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 16:05, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Concern over Bot function

It's tagging a whole lot of pages that have blacklisted links, but what would be helpful is not only the link but what part of the link is blacklisted. In some cases there are wildcard terms like *forum* and so it's not clear why a link is black listed and the provided links do not help. Could you improve the template and allow us some link to whitelist some of these? Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:20, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

For instance: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=A_Band_Called_David&curid=9938275&diff=574386098&oldid=557264484 claims that a link is on the blacklist. I've checked both and neither is a problem. I reverted the addition of the template and I was able to save the page. That tells me that the bot is matching on something that isn't actually on a blacklist. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:30, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

The fact that I just failed at adding this goes against your statement of it not being blacklisted. Anything that is validated is typically matched by the domain name itself. Unfortunately, having Cyberbot do that would eat up my quota of resources. The template has a link to its documentation that provides instructions on how to whitelist links. Forgive me if I am coming across as snark. It's not my intention, I had a hard day today and am getting ready to turn in early tonight.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 23:37, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

But I can edit the article and remove the template notice and the link, which is still in-place, is not blacklisted. So perhaps your regex is foobar and you should follow the same method as the normal blacklist monitor uses. I honestly can't find that URL or link on the blacklist so it's not the blacklist but how you're interpreting it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:23, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Shut it off. These are false positives and I'm reverting it. If you can't figure out what's causing the false positives, I'll have to figure out who to request to shut this off. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:54, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

And here's your blacklist regex from meta:Spam blacklist: \b\d+\w+facts?\.com\b and it's matching on http://www.2ndchapterofacts.com So feel free to whitelist the URL. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:59, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

These are not false positives. Simply because you can remove and add back the tag doesn't mean it's not blacklisted. You can add the blacklisted links to the same if it already exists, hence the tags are able to show up. Try and add the link to some other page, and you'll notice that the blacklist will stop you. Also the bot's engine is the same as MediaWiki's, so they are the same thing.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 11:47, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

A false positive is a URL is caught that should not be excluded. The fact that it's your bot that's doing it is a minor point. The fact is that the site is not blacklisted the word "facts" is. Since it's not your fault, I'll keep reverting the edits until this is resolved or the bot is blocked. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:14, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

It is not a false positive on the bot's end. If it is a false positive, then the blacklist is the culprit because it is the thing that is actually blocking the link from being added.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 20:17, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Exactly.

What we have here is a case where there are bad laws in place. Your bot is the cop enforcing the bad laws. Since we know that the laws are bad, why insist on enforcing them? Work on fixing the lists and then enforce those.

So until the false positives are resolved shut the thing down. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:08, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

• I have serious concerns about what Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Cyberbot II 4 is trying to achieve. I have 1000+ pages on my watch list and a good dozen or two turned up with this tag in the last day, far more than a human editor like me can process. Even if a link is truly on the blacklist, I don't see any consensus to add messy tags like that to article pages or to edit war against establish editors like me on removing the tag where an experienced editor judges it inapt.[4][5] Best to suspend blacklist tagging pending a wider discussion. You want to do that or should I invoke process? - Wikidemon (talk) 06:50, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

The bot is processing at least 20 pages every minute! Special:Contributions/Cyberbot II. It also is going against WP:BOTREQUIRE since it is clearly not harmless and, depending on your interpretation is consuming (human) resources unnecessarily. Since the operator is offline, I suggest that you request it be stopped. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:18, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I was just coming here to ask about a similar tagging - but I see it's already under discussion - so I'll just add a link to the history: [6]. I don't understand the bot activity there at all - but maybe I'm misunderstanding something. I'll also add my comment about the tag - far too ugly and obtrusive - there must be better ways than that, regardless of the correctness or not of the tagging. The talkpage, maybe - or a report page somewhere for future processing? Begoon ^talk 07:28, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

It appears that articlesbase.com is flagged because of this regex: \barticles(?:base|vana)\.com\b . Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:49, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

It was a crap reference, unnecessary and maybe even spam. I removed it anyway. My confusion stemmed from how I was able to remove and re-add it at will, without any complaint or block from the blacklist mechanism. Maybe the bot's right and the blacklist mechanism is faulty. Maybe there's inconsistency in the regex matching they do. Maybe I'm misunderstanding how that should work - it just didn't make sense to me, so I wanted to inquire. I also, though, wanted to comment on the tag, which I think is way too obtrusive, as I mentioned, even if the tagging is accurate. Surely, as I say above, a talkpage note or an "action list" would be a far better option. Begoon ^talk 10:18, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and done an AN/I report here[7] — not sure of the proper procedure here, but if the operator is offline and it's doing 20 edits per minute and ready to edit war over those, best stop it pending discussion. - Wikidemon (talk) 08:38, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Begoon The reason why you were able to add and remove it because it still existed somewhere on the article. If it already exists on an article, the blacklist won't stop you when you add it again. Try adding the link elsewhere and see what happens. The filter will stop it.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 11:47, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

You mean like this:[8], or in some other way? Begoon ^talk 12:05, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Add it as a plain link to your sandbox. Cyberpower is getting curious, and then try to add as a ref as you just.—cyberpower ^Chat_{Limited Access} 12:09, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Heh... Blacklist blocked as plain link, but added with no problem as ref. Begoon ^talk 12:14, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Which is alarming because the blacklist filter isn't doing it's job right. The blacklist can be bypassed by using it in a ref.—cyberpower ^Chat_{Limited Access} 12:16, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

It would appear that could be so - which is why I said above "Maybe the bot's right and the blacklist mechanism is faulty." I see this has been troubling you for a while - perhaps this is why? Begoon ^talk 12:19, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I was wondering why people weren't see it. I filed at VPT. I'm also filing a Bugzilla.—cyberpower ^Chat_{Limited Access} 12:22, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I guess it could turn out it's by design, to allow use in refs, but disallow spam links. Seems like a loophole to me, if so. (and we'll both get shot for WP:BEANS) Begoon ^talk 12:25, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I have disabled the task for now. I have no opinion on whether the bot functioned correctly or not, but multiple estalished editors had concerns, and it is not a veru urgent task (like copyright fighting or vandalism reversion), so shutting the task down for now seemed the best option. Fram (talk) 08:58, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I filed the bug.—cyberpower ^Chat_{Limited Access} 12:29, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah - saw that. I stupidly added it below the {{reflist}} on the SGS page, and my sandbox had no reflist. Doesn't work above a valid reflist. Does work on an existing page like Omegle though, when done immediately after totally removing it, as I demonstrated above by completely removing and then replacing it, but that maybe a caching thing or similar, I guess, because it was done quickly. Won't let me re-add it there now. Begoon ^talk 15:31, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2)I feel that these links shouldn't even be allowed to hide when there is no reflist.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 15:41, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I tend to agree - but maybe it's checking for the actual rendering of the <href> construct later in the "game" or something similar, so they might not be keen on altering that. Guess it would depend on the technicalities... Begoon ^talk 15:50, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Well as long as the link itself isn't rendering, I'm pretty much happy. It would be nice to prohibit the addition of it as a ref.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 16:09, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

That's what it's run page is for. The bot has been functioning as it should.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 11:47, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

--

I want to reiterate the concerns I expressed a few week ago. While the goal of this bot is reasonable, there are major unresolved issues. First, the bot itself doesn't seem quite ready for prime time, but even once that gets fixed, the blacklist itself is clearly significantly problematic, leading to many false positives. The excessively obtrusive message is an issue as well.

A particular example I've been following (and trying to fix) is at Breast reconstruction. The bot tagged a link as it was on the blacklist, tossed in the nasty message, and then another editor removed the link since it was tagged as spam. IMO, the link should be allowed, but the removal cannot be reverted as it falls afoul of the blacklist filter. I opened MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist#www.plasticsurgery.org/public_education/procedures/BreastReconstruction.cfm back on August 13th, and other than a comment that it should probably be added to the whitelist, nothing has happened. Further many of the regex's on the black list are pretty questionable.

Whether or not the bot is functioning as intended, the combination of the bot and the existing blacklist, are causing difficult to repair damage, as editors are giving the "this link is spam" message too much credibility, and removing those links. And since the procedure for fixing the blacklist, or at least adding to the whitelist, seems broken as well, we've got a catch-22.

IMO, several things need to happen:

• The bot needs to be more stable before it is let loose on large areas (clearly that's being worked on).
• The blacklist needs to be fixed to reduce the number of false positives (this is at least being discussed, at least sort of). Perhaps restricting the regexs processed by the bot would be a good idea, since many of the issues seem to be the result of regexs that specify wildcards, as opposed to "simple" strings.
• The tag, which is now better, should emphasize the *tentative* nature of the tag more, encouraging editors to be more careful removing links. To reiterate: the tags are not the direct problem, it's the damage they're encouraging editors to do that's the problem.
• The procedures for updating the whitelist (and perhaps the blacklist as well) need to be fixed to make them responsive. Or at least some way to get removals reverted while the black/whitelist process occurs.

And despite the author's repeated assertions to that the bot is working as intended and the problem is elsewhere (namely in the blacklist), a solid blacklist is fundamental to the operation of this bot, and if the blacklist is broken, the bot is broken as well. Rwessel (talk) 17:38, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I disagree completely. Firstly,

• The bot is as stable as it's going to get. It's the most stable among all of my existing scripts.
• I cannot control the blacklist, and you can't really fix what you don't know is broken.
• You are free to propose a change on what is supposed to say on the template's talk page.
• You'll need to talk to administrators. I am here to at least have the bot ignore links, and I respond very quickly.

vr—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 18:22, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Shut it down and stop defending the bot.

At the very least, throttle it so that it's not applying the edits more than 20 times a minute. Make it once every 20 minutes.

If this was a human editor, it would have been warned and possibly blocked by now. Since it's an electropuppet.... We shouldn't stand for this sort of behaviour. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:27, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Cyberpower. The bot's not doing anything wrong; furthermore, the only way we're ever going to discover that there are FPs in the blacklist is by letting this happen. Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:07, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

How this bot works

This bot is rapidly becoming a pain in the *ss. It should leave the message on the talk page of the article, not at the top of the article page, shouting "hey everyone, look at me".--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:55, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

• Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

I completely agree with the comments on CyberBot II. Was very hacked off last night because, having removed a double posting of its template from an article I was working on (with the intention of address the problem), it reposted it within a short while, causing an edit conflict. How are we supposed to build good articles when this bot throws its weight around? Paul MacDermott (talk) 10:25, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Can you provide a link?—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 11:48, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Here's the edit history of the article I was working on. I've removed the link in question, so hopefully it'll be ok now. If I remember correctly it reposted while I was removing the reference concerned, hence my mention of an edit conflict. The reference concerned had been in place since 2011, so not sure whether or not it's banned. I can't repost the link here though as it triggers off the blacklist warning and won't let me save my edit. Paul MacDermott (talk) 15:07, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

An API failure was causing the bot to crash multiple times yesterday, causing the tagging process to restart. I've stabilized the bot to handle it better and crash less. Normally, when the link is removed, or whitelisted, the tag can be safely removed, but in certain cases, the bot will add it back before realizing the page no longer has the blacklisted link. The bot does remove the tag on it's own if there are no longer blacklisted links on the page. With that being said, the bot has been re-enabled.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 15:12, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Disable it until the blacklist and whitelist are resolved and throttle it. It's not editing in a way that is encouraging cooperation and wikilove. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:30, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, it's causing serious problems; the notices it's posting aren't accurate - see this warning which it led to for what I mean - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lukeno94&oldid=574567191#September_2013 no-ip.info and examiner.com and lots of other sites for which use in external links is problematic, but that are NOT regularly spamvertised are on the blacklist… I think someone should hit the emergency off switch. Must we flag down an admin with Editrequest? --Elvey (talk) 07:00, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

ReverbNation

Discussion started at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Spam_blacklist#reverbnation.com concerning your bot -- The website ReverbNation is credible, and I can't find any discussion as to why it is blocked 009o9 (talk) 17:46, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)That has nothing to do with him or the bot. Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:08, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Are you saying that this isn't the talk page for User talk:Cyberbot II or about the blacklisting of the ReverbNation domain? Seems to me that the person running the batch might appreciate feedback on the quality of the list. 009o9 (talk) 01:38, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

If the entry ends up getting removed from the blacklist, the bot will automatically untag all of the links it uses. No involvement on his part is necessary. Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:42, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Right. You're in the wrong place to discuss the blacklisting of the ReverbNation domain.--Elvey (talk) 02:17, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you 009o9 (talk) 02:21, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Code / help with EBSCOHOST

There is a problem with EBSCOHOST that a bot similar to yours could help with. A large number of pages with EBSCOHOST links (>3000 links) warrant editing to address the broken links prior to a partial blacklist. Would you be available to help, Cyberpower678, e.g. by sharing your source or helping to code such a bot. Details on the problem here.--Elvey (talk) 02:17, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

List of Pokémon: XY episodes

Don't create blank episode lists for a show that won't air for another 3 weeks.—Ryulong (琉竜) 06:37, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I have disabled your bot

Hi, As you would know your bot has been causing me significant bother with it's continual tagging of tram related pages. I have disabled it. I request that you leave it disabled for one week or so to allow the pages currently requested on the whitelist to be processessed. The longer the tags are on pages the more links get removed by people who believe the links are actually blacklisted, rather than mistakenly tagged. I know the bot is acting as it should, but the blacklist clearly has issues, and until those issues are sorted the bot is causing bother, and not doing as it should.

I understand that you have autism and have trouble relating to people, so I will be very clear. You're bot is annoying a lot of people, they are now annoyed at you, your bot is overly aggressive in it's re-tagging. It is for these reasons I have turned it off. Please discuss the issues at the admin board and here before turning it back on. Liamdavies (talk) 07:56, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for this. To give another example, Michael Jackson is a Featured Article with 390 citations. When a member of the public clicks on a link to the article, they do not need to be told immediately that one of the links may be on the spam blacklist. This is a completely disproportionate response to the issue, and the tag should go on the talk page where it can be dealt with when the regular editors have the time to look at it.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:24, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

September 2013

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Calmira. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Pontificalibus (talk) 11:31, 26 September 2013 (UTC)