Jump to content

User talk:3RRBot/bot reported disruption and 3RR violations

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive bot

[edit]

Could somebody give the archive bot some motivation? Jehochman Talk 00:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that Miszabot just runs every 6 hours or so, so we just have to wait. Alternatively, we can get another one of the archiving bots to do the dirty work. - NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 01:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Resolved, false report. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 00:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)}}[reply]

3RRBot (talk) 18:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a bug, I need to find out why this happened. —— nixeagle 18:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Use of the {{Article}} template in headers breaks the section pointers

[edit]

Can I suggest we go back to just using the wikilinked article name in the header? When we have {{la|Article}} included in the header line, section pointers don't work any more. (When a section header includes any template brackets, you can't use the section pointers in an edit history, and you can't click on a TOC entry to be taken to the item). The header of my own item, since it contains template brackets, is an example of what *not* to do. EdJohnston (talk) 05:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will do this one next wednesday and put the {{article}} in a bullet point... however I plan on rewriting the format so the bot does not report instances twice. >.< —— nixeagle 21:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done, just restarted the bot now. —— nixeagle 16:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sig

[edit]

Just a suggestion, but perhaps you could change it so that the Bot doesn't sign the reports, its unnecessary, and it gets in the way a bit--Jac16888 (talk) 01:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay, I will do this one next wednesday as well... I mainly had it sign for the timestamp. —— nixeagle 21:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bot no longer signs —— nixeagle 16:37, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bug

[edit]
[edit]

3RRBot (talk) 18:24, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am seeing multiple false positives as well, where not only were there no reverts, but in at least one case, Darren Mougey, there weren't even any other editors on the page.[1] --Elonka 03:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is buggy, thanks for reporting it. I'll have a look at this one and the one I put above next wednesday when classes end. —— nixeagle 21:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This may be fixed as I changed the algorithm to SHA1 hashing. —— nixeagle 18:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Warning editors automagically

[edit]

Could you perhaps institute some sort of feature whereby the bot warns editors (in a VERY friendly way) about potential 3RR vios? There were several today that I declined blocking because they had never been warned (redlinked talk pages), I know that the vandalism bots (ClueBot and VoABot II) do this routinely. It would help save a step... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, with the known bugs I have, I'm not confident enough in my program to have it take *any* action other then reporting what it sees. Ask me again in a month or so :) —— nixeagle 16:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Was there a move?

[edit]

I'm seen no updates to the page since December 30. Has the information been moved somewhere else? --Elonka 03:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)\[reply]

Sorry about not responding on my talk page. For everyone's information, this bot operates using the toolserver's database replication features. This means that when the database replication lag is greater then a day, running this bot does no good as it will report old editwars, and it will get confused with what it sees over the rc feed and what its seeing in the database. Now that toolserver is back to normal, we can expect this bot to continue running. I'll be adding various improvements to the algorithm soon enough as time allows. —— nixeagle 18:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, thanks for the update! This is really a superb tool, not just for the 3RR part, but also as an early warning system for where more admin attention may be needed on certain articles. As for updates, here's my own wishlist:
  1. Rework the style of the displayed diffs, to URLs that include the title of the article. That way they'll work better with Popups, so we can just hover the mouse over the link to see the diff.
  2. Have the bot recognize when it already has an active report on an article, so it can just add to an existing report rather than creating multiple sections on the same article (check how the bot works at WP:AIV).
  3. Add links or buttons to each section to allow admins to quickly click something that's been handled. For example, instead of having to manually edit the section and type "warned / false positive / blocked", we could have small font links in each section that an admin can click, and the page will automatically close that report with the appropriate message. We can still of course post a manual message with more detail, but for the routine stuff, those hotlinks would speed things up.
Thanks again for writing this, I really missed it when it was gone!  :) --Elonka 18:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I changed your bullet points to numbers so I can respond easier.

  1. This I can do if you include more details as to what I'm reworking. This is likely a very simple change to its output.
  2. I've planned to rewrite the output so that the bot does things on a per-article basis rather then on a per-editor basis. When I complete this rewrite this problem will go away.
  3. I don't even know how or what you are going on with this one. I did not even know that mediawiki has this functionality unless you are talking about a .js script.

Thanks for appreciating it, you can help me out by letting me know on this talk page false positive types it gets. (I know already that it has problems with reporting counter vandalism types reverting vandals... that is not a content dispute and I have a plan to fix it so it will not report this "class"). I do need to see other false positives it gets to improve the bot. —— nixeagle 18:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. What details would you like?
2. Awesome.  :)
3. Yes, javascript. The mechanism I'm thinking of, is used with other things such as HotCat, where you select something and then it automatically makes the edits. There are also some handy scripts with Deletion sorting or AfDs and other Twinkle-related options, where clicking one link or tab makes changes in multiple pages. --Elonka 18:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1, I need to know what you mean by change the links. Can you give me an example?
3, ok, we probably have to get a js scripter to do that for us. Thats outside of my expertise. —— nixeagle 19:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No worries on #3, I had to ask!  :) As for #1, here's an example of the diffs that the bot is currently providing:
The above links don't work with Popups, but would if the article title (title=William_Rodriguez&) were included, as follows:
Does that help? --Elonka 21:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that helps alot. —— nixeagle 13:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working on item 2, so when that is done, item 1 will be done as well. —— nixeagle 15:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have not yet made the switch to the new format, but the duplication problem has been fixed. (or should be). —— nixeagle 16:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Underscores

[edit]

Any chance it can replace underscores in wikilinks with spaces before posting? It helps readability. Thanks -- Gurch (talk) 19:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll do it in a few days. (I see your request) —— nixeagle 18:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, just fixed it now. Future reports should be underscoreless. —— nixeagle 18:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PseudoBot (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Can 3RRBot ignore PseudoBot? The occasional report for PseudoBot that I've seen while scanning this page has always been without merit, as Pseudobot does antivandal work. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 04:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:3RRBot/bot_reported_disruption_and_3RR_violations&oldid=1248778372"