Here, we are polite, thoughtful, smart, geeky people dogs, trying only to do something which is undoubtedly good in the world: write and give away a free encyclopedia. —Jimbo Wales
All archiving tasks which used to be performed by the MiszaBots are now performed by lowercase sigmabot III without the need to change the {{User:MiszaBot/config}} configuration. The actual MiszaBots are neither functioning nor expected to become functional. Please do not post here regarding archiving bots.
When posting on this page, please observe the following guidelines:
Discussions should be kept together, so unless you request otherwise, I will reply to your posts here and will also watch pages where I have posted myself and expect replies there. Do not use the {{talkback}} template or derivatives thereof here.
Keep content disputes on relevant articles' talk pages.
I'm not interested in XfD discussion adverts - these will be ignored. Similar requests by email are redirected to /dev/null immediately.
Don't revert edits to this talk page, unless they're obvious vandalism like blanking/malicious editing of other's comments etc. I'll deal with stupid/hate/spam messages myself by promptly ignoring them.
Thank you!
This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.
About a month ago two new namespaces were added to the English Wikipedia, "Module" and "Module talk". While I do not currently see a need for any of the Miszabots to archive anything in the Module namespace, it would be nice if discussions in Module talk could be handled by the bots. Would it be possible to add Module talk to one of the bots' list of coverage? --Allen3talk12:01, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
MiszaBot II and headers inside template.
Hi, MiszaBot II moved part of a discussion, because it didn't know a ==notes== header was inside a {{markup}} template and thought it was another section/discussion, as you can see here; the section is named "About references in templates". I think it should first search for headers inside such templates. I reverted the missing text move of that section. --KDesk (talk) 20:14, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
With this edit [1] MiszaBot I archived the thread "Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement on Main page" on Talk:Main Page, even though it had a future timestamp, per the bot's FAQ. (I had used {{subst:bump}} to add the future timestamp) - Evad37 (talk) 03:46, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
From User:MiszaBot/Archive FAQ, Q5: "Note however, that if multiple timestamps appear on a single line, only the first one is read." {{Bump}} produces two timestamps, of which the first is the current date/time attached to the user's signature, and the second is the {{DNAU}} future timestamp. Per the FAQ, the bot only read the first timestamp and ignored the second, future timestamp. TL;DR: {{Bump}} doesn't work. Use {{DNAU}} directly instead. jcgoble3 (talk) 05:43, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that explains it. I've fixed {{Bump}} by adding a line break after the user signature, so it should work now. - Evad37 (talk)
Bot failing when encountering blacklisted EL
See this edit. The bot deleted the threads from the talk page but failed to save the threads anywhere. When I undid the bot's deletion the spam filter would not let me save the undo due to an external link being placed on the blacklist. I altered the offending EL and saved the undo and will let the bot try archiving again.
What can be done to prevent this in the future? I would suggest the bot make the save to the archive first, and upon being rejected by the spam filter then no deletion is made from the talk page in the first place (because the spam filter would also disallow the bot to undo the original deletion from the talk page without fixing the blacklisted EL -- as it did to me). Or, upon the bot's edit being denied by the spam filter, the bot reports the edit to the talk page so a human can make the correction.
Hi Misza13! I'm investigating all the things that would be important when archiving pages in general, and then I stumbled upon your page. I was wondering whether you by any chance provide the source code of your bot? Regards. -- Edinwiki (talk) 00:19, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Misza13, I am contacting you in regards to MiszaBot II's archiving of the WP:ANI page. There was a discussion that was still in progress that was near the top of the list, and the discussion never closed, specifically discussions like this one. No action was taken as it should have, and I would be under the assumption that this has been forgotten, since it is no longer on the WP:ANI main page. I'm not sure if this method is some sort of consensus-agreed method, but I do not see how archiving a discussion that has yet to complete on WP:ANI can be considered anything other than disruptive. Steel1943 (talk) 02:09, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Steel1943. MiszaBot works by date, and does not understand whether the thread is closed. If you check the timestamps, it seems that more than 36 hours have passed since the last edit to this thread (at 00:37 on 13 April). Hence MiszaBot followed its instructions by archiving it at 14:35 on 14 April. I suggest that you manually copy the thread back into ANI. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:42, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, 00:37, 13 April 2013 (UTC)+36 hours = 12:37, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
You can verify the maximum time that a thread can be left before MiszaBot archives it. Edit the original page (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents) and locate the {{User:MiszaBot/config}} template. Look for the |algo= parameter; in this case it's |algo=old(36h) which means that threads will be archived where the most recent timestamp is more than 36 hours earlier.
Hello to everyone who responded. These responses actually slightly stray from my question. My question actually is: Is it plausable for Miszabot II to recognize some sort of archive banner template on the section prior to archiving (as well as the time restraint), or does that seem like too much and could possibly "clog up" the WP:ANI thread? Steel1943 (talk) 09:12, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As seen here (Commons), the previous edit is mentioned by the bot in the edit summary. This is really neat. Do you think MiszaBot could do this? Thanks! – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies04:34, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Headers in pre tags are part of an earlier section
In [2] MiszaBot II archived what appeared to be a section with header
== *DYNAMIC SECTION TITLE THAT WILL BE PASSED AS A VARIABLE* ==
But the header code was inactivated by being in <pre>...</pre> and was actually part of an earlier section. The <pre> tag was not archived so the page was misformatted afterwards. I have fixed the page and archive. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:49, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
According to the history of that talk page, Miszabot has created "Archive 48". That archive does indeed exist. But there is no trace of any archive on the actual talk page, and the "48" is obviously rogue as the archive has "threads" back to 2004 and there is no archive 47. ?!?!? --Sussexonian (talk) 14:20, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The account User:MiszaBot appears to be blocked, with bots I, II, and III (wow, I never expected to write III|III]]) doing the work...but a lot of the documentation is hosted at the "old" bot page. It's strange because if you attempt to comment on, say, the FAQ, you get a "user is blocked" red box. Also, the Miszabot page has one of those bot shutdown buttons, suggesting it's a real bot. I figured it out but maybe it's suboptimal organization? On a related note, you may want to register/redirect/block the accounts User:Miszabot I, User:Miszabot II, and User:Miszabot III? WP:BEANS, but they seem tempting targets. (Maybe accounts with "bot" are autoprevented somehow.) -- stillnotelfis invisible16:07, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean to at all imply that I, II, and III should be blocked! My confusion is that User:MiszaBot, which hosts a lot of documentation for bots I, II, and III, IS blocked, but its page behaves as if it's a fully functioning bot - big shutoff button, use of present tense, listed as having active tasks...). I think I, II, and III should continue as-is, but maybe User:MiszaBot should be tweaked to indicate its historical / documentation status and clarify it is no longer an active bot (and perhaps won't be again). For the second point - notice the capitalizations. My reference to WP:BEANS is the fact that I was relucant to spell out that User:Miszabot I (notice the case, and no it is not registered at this time) would be an attractive account for a vandal, since it looks a lot like a respected account, and could be used for subtle vandalism without attracting notice. -- stillnotelfis invisible18:08, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, can someone explain why it still masquerades as a fully functioning bot, or suggest what should be done about the confusion? See: User_talk:Fluffernutter#MiszaBot_confusion. Perhaps we just tweak the page to indicate that I, II, and III, do the work as MiszaBot itself was malfunctioning and remains blocked.--Elvey (talk) 16:14, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've been bold following feedback from the blocker and the above discussion.
Your bot is not archiving my stuff. Its set to do it every 30 days but it wont so I have to do it myself. Its annoying. Could you fix this or something. BlackDragon14:57, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First, let's consider the settings as they presently stand.
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|algo = old(30d)
|archive = User talk:Black60dragon/Archive 2
}}
Now compare these with their descriptions in User:MiszaBot/Archive HowTo. The first setting, |algo=old(30d) doesn't mean "every 30 days" but that threads will be archived only when they are at least 30 days old. What's also important is the settings that you have omitted: these take on their default values. For example, you've not specified |minthreadsleft=, therefore, the bot will not archive threads if that would leave less than five on the page. Now look at the last version of your talk page prior to your recent manual archive. It has one thread; I know that you're going to say "but there are 17", but the level 1 heading immediately after the contents acts as a wrapper for all the subsequent level 2 headings. If you want automatic archiving to occur, that level 1 heading must go. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:01, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
K thanks and I meant 30 days old. And someone edited the bot part a while back. Im not sure what they changed though .BlackDragon01:03, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hei Misza13, please take a look at User talk:Misza13/Archives/2013/03#script inactive sysops, the script is out of order since months now. Would be great, if you or anyone else reading this would repair it at any time. Would also be good, if the message wouldn’t disappear in the archive, as long as nothing has been changed with the script. --Geitost11:30, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are two possibilities here, both connected to the fact that the script is on Toolserver: (i) people with a Toolserver account must log in there at least once every six months, otherwise their accounts expire - it's possible that since Misza13 (talk·contribs) hasn't edited on Wikipedia for seven months now, he also hasn't visited Toolserver during the same period; (ii) Toolserver is known to be in a bad way, and many tasks are failing through no fault of their owners, see various threads at WP:VPT and its archives. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:03, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve read months ago that this error hasn’t anything to do with the inactivity of Misza13. In that case, there wouldn’t be anything to see anymore except „account expired“ and something like this. Perhaps, that may be in the future. This error has something to do with MW changes made years ago (I don’t know anymore which ones, someone mentioned that on German wiki in March). The script had to be changed, but wasn’t, and in February or March, the old way of doing things (which was old for years) had been switched off, so the script isn’t useable anymore since then. But I can’t remember which change and switch off that was. I’d have to look for that again. But if noone else has the possibility to change the script except Misza13, then that wouldn’t help anyway. Anyone would have to take over the maintenaince, if Misza13 doesn’t come back anymore. --Geitost14:33, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
