User talk:ClueBot Commons/Archives/2016/June

This is an archive of past discussions about User:ClueBot Commons. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Insertion of junk into Indices

In 2014 Cluebot replaced an index with large amounts of junk: Special:Diff/615953628. One year afterwards Cluebot briefly corrected the error in Special:Diff/650810879, but two days later re-inserted the junk again in Special:Diff/650985340. —Sladen (talk) 17:11, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

That's because the archiveprefix is set incorrectly: archiveprefix={{TALKPAGENAME}}/Archives/ It needs to be a real name, not a template. -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 17:29, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Cobi, I have tried Special:Diff/723545434, but I see in the mean-time that Cluebot re-inserted the junk in Special:Diff/723544665; which shows that Cluebot is retrieving the weird list from somewhere; and I'm unclear where that could be? —Sladen (talk) 17:45, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Similar happening in Special:Diff/723494488 Special:Diff/723494146 Special:Diff/723494419 Special:Diff/723494491. The bot probably could do with some sanity check code. Where-ever the list is being sourced from; I can't see any basis to while it should be being inserted raw in multiple different separate pages. —Sladen (talk) 18:00, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

ClueBot III disruptively archiving its own documentation page

Since 24 April 2016‎, ClueBot III has been repeatedly archiving the page User:ClueBot III/Documentation, and then archiving the archive, and then archiving the archive of the archive, and so on, so that we have 23 archive pages from User:ClueBot III/Documentation/Archives/ ranging through User:ClueBot III/Documentation/Archives//Archives//Archives//Archives/ etc etc up to User:ClueBot III/Documentation/Archives//Archives//Archives//Archives//Archives//Archives//Archives//Archives//Archives//Archives//Archives//Archives//Archives//Archives//Archives//Archives//Archives//Archives//Archives//Archives//Archives//Archives//Archives/. The editor Pppery has been reverting, and has also made changes to the page in an attempt to stop the problem, but to no avail. I have fully protected the page, in the hope that will stop ClueBot III, but perhaps Cobi or someone else who knows about this bot can produce a better solution to the problem. Obviously blocking is an option, but I prefer to leave that as a last resort. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:20, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

• I have now seen that the problem goes further than just the pages I mentioned, so that there have also been pages such as User:ClueBot III/Indices/User:ClueBot III/Documentation/Archives//Archives//Archives//Archives//Archives//Archives//Archives//Archives//Archives//Archives//Archives//Archives//Archives/ and User:ClueBot III/Master Detailed Indices/User:ClueBot III/Documentation/Archives//Archives//Archives//Archives//Archives//Archives//Archives//Archives//Archives//Archives//Archives//Archives//Archives/, and so on. I have deleted many of the archives, and I shall did think it best to block the bot until the problem can be properly dealt with, but on further thought I have decided that page protection may be a good enough stopgap measure. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:33, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

My most recent change, substing the transclusions of {{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis}} (and then cleaning up unnecessary parser functions) means that the page no longer transcludes the above template and thus protection shouldn't have been necessary (before you reverted my changes). Pppery (talk) 21:00, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

@Pppery: You may be right, and if so maybe protection wasn't necessary. Are you 100% sure that would deal with the problem? If you are really confident that it will, and if nobody else posts here to indicate a knowledge of further problems, I can restore your last version and remove the protection. (However, even then, it will be a good idea if someone with suitable knowledge can deal with whatever problem with the bot has caused this to happen.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:18, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Why would cause the bot to archive a page that doesn't even transclude its archival template? (Previously, the docs for the |index= parameter included a {{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis}} without a |age= parameter, which has caused problems before.) As a side effect, my changes should mean that the User:ClueBot III/Indices/User:ClueBot III/Documentation page will no longer be filled with junk and thus the <noinclude>d warning about junk in the archive boxes can be removed. Pppery (talk) 21:29, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

@Pppery: OK, I've reverted to your version and removed the protection. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 23:51, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Nope - I was wrong, ClueBot III archived the page again. It had probably cached the transclusions. Pppery (talk) 02:18, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Well this is a bit of an interesting (and morbidly amusing) problem. Would be interested to know what Cobi has to say about this. That being said, I do not think we need to go as far as to blocking the bot, since it is working on other pages. If it's just the bot harvesting its own documentation page and nothing else, page protection should suffice. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 02:33, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

• I've restored the page protection. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 01:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Note that ClueBot III attempts to edit the archive before editing the source page, according to Cobi's comment on User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 202#Moving towards addressing the issues, which means that, even with the page protected, ClueBot III would create User:ClueBot III/Documentation/Archives/, then, after failing to remove the sectionf from the protected page, blank it, leaving only the talk archive header. This may be good, because it means that we can know whether the bot would have archived something. Pppery (talk) 15:19, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Can edit summaries increase the probability of ClueBot NG's detecting relative edits?

That would make sense, especially when the edit summaries are disruptive or indicate their relative edits as disruption. Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ (talk) 01:46, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

ClueBot's Reversion

hello how can I talk to u guyz, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saatvik.Jacob Material Scientist (talk • contribs) 09:04, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello Saatvik.Jacob Material Scientist,

I have moved your post to the correct position in the page. What is your query regarding this robot? Are you wondering why ClueBot NG is reverting you? Looking at your type of edits, I can understand why a non-human is reverting you.--5 albert square (talk) 15:07, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

greek super cup

Begin first time 1980(see sources)www.rsssf.com/tablesg/grksupcuphist.html.--77.49.42.105 (talk) 23:07, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi, this is not the place to discuss content disputes. You will want the talk page of the article in question. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 00:14, 19 June 2016 (UTC)