User talk:Σ
 | This user may have left Wikipedia. Σ has not edited Wikipedia since 22 June 2022. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else. |
 | I do not check my talk page. If you need to reach me, leave a message here AND send a copy to me via email.
The lowercase sigmabots and my Toolforge services are still running, but are unmaintained. In the event of crashes/outages/errors, note that aside from myself, User:0xDeadbeef, User:The Earwig, and User:APerson also have administrative access and can troubleshoot. |
 | I cannot help with issues about archiving your own talk page. If you have read the documentation carefully and are still having problems, a prompt and friendly answer can usually be found by asking at the teahouse. |
 |
total number of archived discussions
[edit]Hello. I am not sure who is currently maintaining the bot, and who to ask this question/request (as you have been inactive here since 2 years).
Currently, I have a task to send out notifications for Teahouse thread/discussion archival (User:KiranBOT/Teahouse notification). For that task, it is crucial that Lowercase sigmabot III mentions the total number of discussions that were archived. For example, in this edit the bot archived 86 discussions in total, out of which 31 to "Archive 1246", and rest were to 1245. The edit summary says "Archiving 31 discussion(s) to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1246, Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1245". My request is, would it be possible to add the total number of archived discussions to the edit summary? ie, "Archiving 86 discussion(s) to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1246, Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1245", if it is a lot complicated, then would following summary be possible "Archiving 31 discussion(s) to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1246, Archiving 55 discussion(s) Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1245"? —usernamekiran (talk) 15:25, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- pinging @Enterprisey, The Earwig, and 0xDeadbeef: —usernamekiran (talk) 15:30, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- I update the code at User:Usernamekiran/Lowercase sigmabot III/Source.py. I have not tested it, but I think it would need some minor testing/fixing. Would you guys kindly do it? —usernamekiran (talk) 05:12, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think your solution with the yields will work correctly as you've written it. But either with your approach or a different one, this shouldn't be too difficult to fix. I'm swamped with personal things at the moment, but I've made a note to come back to this in a couple weeks if no one else takes a look. — The Earwig (talk) 00:27, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
- oh. I was hoping it would work, or at least make it easier to find the actual solution. Thanks for the response, and for the help, it is appreciated a lot. —usernamekiran (talk) 15:33, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- I've had a read with the original source code, and I am confused as to why the bot counts 31 in that case. It is supposed to count the number of sections it has removed, which should be correct. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 09:51, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think your solution with the yields will work correctly as you've written it. But either with your approach or a different one, this shouldn't be too difficult to fix. I'm swamped with personal things at the moment, but I've made a note to come back to this in a couple weeks if no one else takes a look. — The Earwig (talk) 00:27, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
- I update the code at User:Usernamekiran/Lowercase sigmabot III/Source.py. I have not tested it, but I think it would need some minor testing/fixing. Would you guys kindly do it? —usernamekiran (talk) 05:12, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
Bad behavior at Donald Trump
[edit]Two issues at Talk:Donald Trump:
- Bot hasn't dropped by since 29 March.
- Nothing to archive, you say? Two days ago, admin Valereee identified five threads[1][2] that should have been auto-archived on 21 March, 22 March, 25 March, 26 March, 27 March, and 29 March. Well... not all of them as early as 21 March, but certainly all of them by 29 March. Archive age is 7 days. Those threads have now been manually archived.
I created a test thread with a fake date at Talk:Donald Trump#Archive bot test thread. Now if we can just get the bot to visit. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 08:49, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
Come to think of it, the bot could be visiting and not finding anything to archive (despite that it should do). That would be indistinguishable from not visiting, since it doesn't leave a "note" (dummy edit) when it does that. So we could be looking at one issue, not two. Does it log visits somewhere, including "nothing found" visits? ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 10:30, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
- The user hasn't edited in nearly three years...maybe just switch to another bot? Valereee (talk) 10:35, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
- Redrose64 commented above just two days ago. If anybody can figure this out, she can. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 10:39, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
- The bot must have heard me talking about it. It just came by and archived two threads including my test thread. I guess call it a mystery transient until further notice (unless Redrose64 has any ideas). ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 13:48, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
- @Mandruss: Yes, I've been monitoring this page for some years. Usually, problems posted here aren't really problems at all, but a misunderstanding of how the bot operates. The first thing to do is to check the parameters of the
{{User:MiszaBot/config}}- most importantly,|algo=old(7d)means 7 days (168 hours) since the latest timestamp within a thread. At the time that Mandruss first raised this thread (08:31, 2 April 2025 (UTC)), any thread containing a timestamp of 08:31, 26 March 2025 (UTC) or later was not eligible for archiving. Also not eligible for archiving are any threads that totally lack a valid timestamp. See the list below: of the 47 threads in the page at that time, only two were eligible for archiving - these were no. 10 "Allegations of narcissistic personality disorder" and no. 47 "Archive bot test thread". It is entirely likely that in the 15 hours 17 minutes between 17:14, 1 April 2025 (UTC) (when no. 10 became eligible) and 08:31, 2 April 2025 (UTC) (when Mandruss posted here), Lowercase sigmabot III simply hadn't had a chance to get to Talk:Donald Trump. Consider: it does have an awful lot of article talk pages to work through, and cannot visit every one of them every day, and even if it could, it is not going to archive threads the instant that they become eligible; several hours might elapse, and this is perfectly normal. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:13, 2 April 2025 (UTC)- Thanks, Redrose. Valereee (talk) 21:16, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
- @Mandruss: Yes, I've been monitoring this page for some years. Usually, problems posted here aren't really problems at all, but a misunderstanding of how the bot operates. The first thing to do is to check the parameters of the
List of threads existing at 08:31, 2 April 2025 (UTC), with most recent timestamps
|
|---|
|
- @Redrose64: Thanks. How about we isolate one simple case. Here are four of the five threads that had to be manually archived because the bot missed them. The third of the four, "Renaming Second Trump tariffs", had only one date: 10 March 2025. So it was eligible for auto-archival on 17-18 March, and should have been auto-archived in the 21 March run. Failing that, the 22nd, 25th, 26th, 27th, or 29th. The bot just refused to archive that one. Why? ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 21:47, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
- I'm wondering about two entirely unrelated things that might be a factor. First, the history of Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 194 (the relevant archive for the period) shows a large amount of non-bot archiving, either manual cut-and-paste, or by using the User:Elli/OneClickArchiver script. In the past, I have known bot archiving on other pages to be disrupted by such actions. Second - and probably more likely - the only signature in the thread concerned is not in the normal format, the links to user page and user talk page are unspaced, instead having a Unicode U+2748 character between them, which might be confusing the bot. For this reason, the little red rose in my own sig is in the form of a numeric character reference, and also spaced away from the links. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:36, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
- If a sig confuses the bot, it's an invalid sig. Somebody with some authority/power/teeth should tell them to fix it and make sure they do. Somebody like, say, you. :)But does that explanation account for the other three in that group? ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 13:09, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
- For "Trump comments on Unite the Right rally, Charlottesville, VA, Aug 11–12, 2017", the latest timestamp was 13:50, 20 March 2025 (UTC) so it wouldn't be eligible for archiving until 13:50, 27 March 2025 (UTC). Another thing that comes to mind is the size of the page - it's presently under scrutiny at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Unusual slowdowns at Talk:Donald Trump. Which you knew already, but there may be a connection. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:02, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
- You didn't respond about the invalid sig, which concerns me greatly. A lone user should not be permitted to break critical infrastructure. None of us has the time to constantly monitor auto-archiving to make sure it's working correctly, scanning long threads to determine the latest dates. There's no reason that editor would listen to a peon like me. Based on my experience, there's a very good chance they would look at my "Is administrator? X" and wish me a nice day.
so it wouldn't be eligible for archiving until 13:50, 27 March 2025 (UTC).
Ok, so if the timing wasn't quite right for the bot run on the 27th (my time), it should have been archived in the run on the 29th. It wasn't. Explain please. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 14:41, 3 April 2025 (UTC)- Please don't treat me as if I am the person who maintains the bot. I'm not. I'm merely a passer-by who fields the occasional question in the continued absence of Σ (talk · contribs). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:27, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not expecting you to fix the bot, even if it needs fixing; I fully understand that the bot is, sadly, currently unmaintainable. Just trying to understand the situation, and you're the one with the technical knowledge about such things. Auto-archival was working fine for years (concurrent with heavy use of OneClickArchiver), then suddenly it wasn't; I need to know why. But "I don't know <shrug>" is a response I would accept. I don't expect anybody to know everything, even you. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 10:06, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
- Don't assume there's no reason that editor would listen to a peon like me. We expect well-intentioned editors to listen to well-intentioned editors, especially ones who are more experienced. Status as an admin by someone reaching out to an editor with a concern isn't something the community considers when assessing response to those concerns. Explain your concern to the editor. If they don't listen, ping me. Valereee (talk) 18:40, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
- I shall give it a try, and one of us is likely to learn something. Redrose64, please clarify exactly what needs to be done to the sig. Are you saying it just needs spaces before and after the "sparkle" character? ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 04:28, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
- Actually, since we're just guessing at this point, I think we should be certain before I approach that editor. I would like to open two test threads at Talk:Donald Trump, one with the fix and one without it. Then see what happens on the next bot run. Would it be acceptable for me to forge the other user's sig in this manner if I make it clear what I'm doing in the content of the threads? To prove it's in fact me, I would add a link to the diff of the edit that opened the thread. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 10:10, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
- No responses, so I went ahead with my plan, assuming that I understand the syntax issue as commented above. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 10:34, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
- Test completed. Both test threads were archived.
- "Archival bot test 1" - Using the user's current sig.
- "Archival bot test 2" - Using that sig with the addition of spaces before and after the "sparkle" character, per my best guess as to what Redrose64 was saying.
- So there's nothing wrong with the sig, and there's no explanation for why the bot refused to archive it the other day. We're back to square one—and I'll hazard a guess that we're going to remain here indefinitely. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 14:09, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
- Please don't treat me as if I am the person who maintains the bot. I'm not. I'm merely a passer-by who fields the occasional question in the continued absence of Σ (talk · contribs). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:27, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
- You didn't respond about the invalid sig, which concerns me greatly. A lone user should not be permitted to break critical infrastructure. None of us has the time to constantly monitor auto-archiving to make sure it's working correctly, scanning long threads to determine the latest dates. There's no reason that editor would listen to a peon like me. Based on my experience, there's a very good chance they would look at my "Is administrator? X" and wish me a nice day.
- For "Trump comments on Unite the Right rally, Charlottesville, VA, Aug 11–12, 2017", the latest timestamp was 13:50, 20 March 2025 (UTC) so it wouldn't be eligible for archiving until 13:50, 27 March 2025 (UTC). Another thing that comes to mind is the size of the page - it's presently under scrutiny at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Unusual slowdowns at Talk:Donald Trump. Which you knew already, but there may be a connection. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:02, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
- If a sig confuses the bot, it's an invalid sig. Somebody with some authority/power/teeth should tell them to fix it and make sure they do. Somebody like, say, you. :)But does that explanation account for the other three in that group? ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 13:09, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
- I'm wondering about two entirely unrelated things that might be a factor. First, the history of Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 194 (the relevant archive for the period) shows a large amount of non-bot archiving, either manual cut-and-paste, or by using the User:Elli/OneClickArchiver script. In the past, I have known bot archiving on other pages to be disrupted by such actions. Second - and probably more likely - the only signature in the thread concerned is not in the normal format, the links to user page and user talk page are unspaced, instead having a Unicode U+2748 character between them, which might be confusing the bot. For this reason, the little red rose in my own sig is in the form of a numeric character reference, and also spaced away from the links. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:36, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
- @Redrose64: Thanks. How about we isolate one simple case. Here are four of the five threads that had to be manually archived because the bot missed them. The third of the four, "Renaming Second Trump tariffs", had only one date: 10 March 2025. So it was eligible for auto-archival on 17-18 March, and should have been auto-archived in the 21 March run. Failing that, the 22nd, 25th, 26th, 27th, or 29th. The bot just refused to archive that one. Why? ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 21:47, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
My best guess is that someone wrote malformed wiki markup text in a way that broke lcsb3's ability to split a page into threads. This would result in the bot not being able to see all the threads on the page and not be able to archive them individually, only all at once, when the entire page is eligible for archival. If this is indeed the problem then Earwig would know more about how to fix this in the long run.
If you'd rather not bring Earwig onboard then the quickest way to fix a page that gets broken this way is to just use one/zero-click archiving tools (I see that andrybak has taken ownership over the one I wrote several years ago; User:andrybak/Archiver) as needed, and hope that the thread with the offending wiki text gets shoved into the archive where it will no longer cause any harm to lcsb3. Then the bot will revisit it on the next run and archive threads correctly. →Σσς. (Sigma) 07:04, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
Request: add visual message for incorrect archive= value
[edit]If the |archive= of {{User:MiszaBot/config}} is not a subpage of the talk-page, the archiving does not work--the situation is an actual error. When one makes this mistake, the talk-page is placed in Category:Pages where archive parameter is not a subpage, and third-parties and bots can help resolve it. However, editors don't seem to know that cat exists...they see archiving does not work but can't figure out why. And they need to wait for the next bot run to know if they fixed it. I propose that this situation also causes the template to display message, similar to when templates are called with invalid parameter-names thanks to {{Module:TemplatePar}}. DMacks (talk) 15:12, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
- Pinging PrimeHunter, who added the tracking-category feature. DMacks (talk) 15:16, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
- @DMacks: Messages about invalid parameter names are usually made with Module:Check for unknown parameters and only shown in preview. Do you also mean to only show in preview? That seems OK. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:21, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
- My main want is that it actually displays something right where the template is placed. Either during preview or in the live rendering would be fine. Any implementation is fine (my experience is with the Chembox suite, which uses TemplatePar). DMacks (talk) 17:29, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
- @DMacks: I have added a preview warning: "Page using User:MiszaBot/config with archive parameter not a subpage".[3] I made it brief with a link to the category for more details. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:25, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
- @DMacks: I have added a preview warning: "Page using User:MiszaBot/config with archive parameter not a subpage".[3] I made it brief with a link to the category for more details. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:25, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
- My main want is that it actually displays something right where the template is placed. Either during preview or in the live rendering would be fine. Any implementation is fine (my experience is with the Chembox suite, which uses TemplatePar). DMacks (talk) 17:29, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
- @DMacks: Messages about invalid parameter names are usually made with Module:Check for unknown parameters and only shown in preview. Do you also mean to only show in preview? That seems OK. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:21, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
Request: Do not partially archive only a few comments made by the same editor in quick succession
[edit]This results in junk edits being added to the archive page and becoming untouchable according to some people, which is a ridiculous and avoidable situation. Gnomingstuff (talk) 19:10, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
- Special:Contributions/41.113.143.31 is a recent example. Three junk edits were made by this IP within 10 minutes. One of them was archived and is now on the archive page. The other two are not. It is ridiculous that only those two can be reverted now when they are in the same batch of junk, and it is unreasonable to expect someone to miraculously be around to it within the 10-minute window before the bot strikes. There is no reason at all to ever archive something 10 minutes after posting, really. Gnomingstuff (talk) 19:11, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
- (talk page watcher) @Gnomingstuff: What is this "10-minute window" that you mention? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:00, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
- The fact that the archive bot can strike at any time, regardless of logic, common sense, or the state of a discussion, and that the only thing dictating whether one gets there before it is chance and free time. Gnomingstuff (talk) 20:07, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
- I don't understand. 41.113.143.31 made their three edits between 14:21, 18 February 2025 and 14:27, 18 February 2025, which is six minutes, not ten; and the edit occurred at 18:30, 20 March 2025, which I work out as thirty days, four hours and nine minutes later. This is in accordance with the
|algo=old(30d)parameter of the{{User:MiszaBot/config}}template. Where does ten minutes come into this? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:16, 11 April 2025 (UTC) - Archiving always works by section. It doesn't matter whether the same poster made multiple sections in quick succession. The archiving instructions in the source text of the lead say
algo=old(30d)andminthreadsleft=1. That means at least 30 days must have passed before bot archiving, and the bot must leave at least one section on the page. The archiving [4] happened after 30 days and it was the only two sections so the bot left one of them. It did exactly as instructed and there is no bot problem here. A bot cannot tell whether sections are nonsense or whether separate sections were created for no reason. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:20, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
- I don't understand. 41.113.143.31 made their three edits between 14:21, 18 February 2025 and 14:27, 18 February 2025, which is six minutes, not ten; and the edit occurred at 18:30, 20 March 2025, which I work out as thirty days, four hours and nine minutes later. This is in accordance with the
- The fact that the archive bot can strike at any time, regardless of logic, common sense, or the state of a discussion, and that the only thing dictating whether one gets there before it is chance and free time. Gnomingstuff (talk) 20:07, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
- (talk page watcher) @Gnomingstuff: What is this "10-minute window" that you mention? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:00, 11 April 2025 (UTC)