You can contact me quickly via IRC on freenode by using my handle "AaronSchulz".
You can use English on my talk page.
Vous pouvez employer le français sur ma page de discussion.
- 2007/December
- 2007/November
- 2008
- 2008/April
- 2008/August
- 2008/December
- 2008/February
- 2008/January
- 2008/July
- 2008/June
- 2008/March
- 2008/May
- 2008/November
- 2008/October
- 2008/September
- 2009/December
- 2009/August
- 2009/April
- 2009/February
- 2009/January
- 2009/July
- 2009/June
- 2009/March
- 2009/May
- 2009/September
- 2009/October
- 2009/November
- 2010/April
- 2010/August
- 2010/February
- 2010/January
- 2010/July
- 2010/March
- 2010/May
Reversion
Your bot keeps reverting my edits to the article Big Time which has large amounts of repeated material and is really needs to be fixedBauerPower 03:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
- See here. My bot only reverted the IP twice. Some other user did the other times. It tends to reverted massive deletions by very new users. Voice-of-All 18:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Reversion 2
Why did this bot send me a vandalism notice when all i did was delete the vandalism and revise the article back? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.55.166 (talk • contribs)
- Fixed. Some credential checks were not running. Voice-of-All 01:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
please stop
do not revert my addition of reference - whoever is in control of this bot, please note it works imporperly! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rimerimea (talk • contribs) 01:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- That was a youtube link, one that should best be avoided. Voice-of-All 18:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
...
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Borat&diff=next&oldid=169936149
If a human did that, they would be blocked. To be honest, I don't see why you should be treated any differently, just because you're running a computer program through a separate account. I will be asking for it to be blocked if that continues to happen – Gurch 19:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- I was wondering what was up with that edit too. (Sorry if you already responded to Gurch, I couldn't find a reply on his talk page, though.) Rocket000 20:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- I've already changed it so that diff doesn't trigger a revert anymore. Voice-of-All 20:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Bot reversions minor?
Bot is marking the reversions as minor (example), and I don't see why. If it has any algorithm of qualifying reverts as minor, it is malfunctioning. As a matter of principle, I think reverts should not be marked minor. --Kubanczyk 14:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
- Not sure on this. The idea of reverts is that "I just removed some vandalism, nothing to see here, move along" rather than reverting/making a large good faith change. This is why admin rollbacks are marked as minor. Voice-of-All 22:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
- I agree. A minor edit is something that doesn't substantively change the content of the article from what the article editors intended. Restoring a vandalized page doesn't change the original content. -Amatulic 23:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
- Oh silly me, I was unaware that this bot never makes mistakes. By definition everything reverted by the bot is vandalism. Very well, "nothing to see here, move along". --Kubanczyk 20:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
incorrect identification of vandalism to article Alcoholics Anonymous
Your Bot reverted an edits to the Alcoholics Anonymous article several times despite the edits having a correct Edit Summary. 80.194.237.22 13:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
- I altered an over inclusive regexp. Voice-of-All 18:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Bloodhound gang
WHY is the great white dope a rock song????????? its just hip hop! he raps and there are no e-guitars!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! oh my god i will change it back! when you have reasons why is it an alternative rock song than say it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.167.207.3 (talk) 20:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Reverted edit in the Eschalon:_Book_I article
I don't see why the link to the teaser trailer of Eschalon, along with the link to the Official forums of Basilisk Games was removed from the Eschalon:_Book_I article, as they are completely relevant to the article at hand. Could you please undo the changes that you did, and if you cannot, could you please explain either in my personal discussion page, or the Eschalon:_Book_I discussion page what I have to do. I'm new to Wikipedia, and I hope we can resolve this in a timely manner. Thank you. (Learner Jedi 12:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC))
- Can you find an official teaser link or game site link. YouTube really is not the best place for decent/stable links. Voice-of-All 18:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- I found a more suitable, stable link for the teaser trailer and have updated the article. Thank you. (Learner Jedi 21:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC))
Hey!
Hello, your bot, User:VoABot_II isn't marking its edits with b for bot like all the other bots do, should it? PhilB ~ T/C 20:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- No, that would mean they would be hidden from RC by default. Anti-vandal bots need to be watched over, so that shouldn't be the case. Voice-of-All 20:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Death Note revert
May not be worth pointing out, but someone added the same word a few hundred times to Death Note, an ip reverted it, and your bot reverted it back to the vandalized version. Doceirias 22:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
A somewhat strange case
I'm sorry for asking here, but I didn't want to make a mess with the checkuser. I'm asking you, cause you closed the case I'm referring to. What should I do if a certain sockpuppeteer has created tons of accounts to push POV in an article and lately a new account with which he edits the articles falling into the area of interest of the original sockpuppets (and to the sockpuppeteer in some cases) and who within a few days started pushing the same POV on the very same article he started with. Should all these be added to the case? And should they be with one and the same code letter. Sorry if I'm killing your time for nonsense, but I'm really not confident when it comes to requesting a checkuser. --Laveol T 23:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
VoA Bot II
Your bot was doing something weird earlier... Got stuck in a loop at the above article, removing 'Infobox musical artist'. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 04:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Malformatted warning messages
VoABot II is attaching vandalism warnings which are not in the standard format. See, for example, [1] recent warning. Specifically, the bot is attaching a top-level header to the warning. Those headers are not part of the preferred format for warning messages and make it harder for subsequent readers to scan the list of warnings to determine if/when a block is appropriate. Templated warnings are supposed to be added to the anon's page as comments. To the extent that there are any headers on the page, they should be time based - usually in monthly buckets.
If this were a one-off warning, I wouldn't be worried about non-standard formatting. But as a bot, the mistake gets propagated very widely. I would appreciate it if you could update your bot's formatting. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 05:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
VoABot II
Would it be possible to have VoABot II not revert to itself? Most other anti-vandalism bots already have this functionality enabled (such as ClueBot, and MartinBot, as long as it's not in "angry mode"). It would seem that it causes more harm than good; in situations such as this, it only serves to inflame the existing situation.
Thanks! — madman bum and angel 06:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- Interesting heuristic. I'm adding it now. Voice-of-All 06:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- OK, I set MAX_BOT_REVERTS=2 for now. Voice-of-All 06:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your quick response! :D — madman bum and angel 07:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- OK, I set MAX_BOT_REVERTS=2 for now. Voice-of-All 06:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- This should really have been done before. Situations such as this are blatant violations of the three-revert rule, and could lead to a block of both bot and operator if an administrator was so inclined; having a bot account is not an excuse to violate policy. The edit repeatedly reverted on that page was not blatant vandalism, so the three-revert rule applies. Bots should not become involved in content disputes, and this is dangerously close to just that – Gurch 11:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- What does "Dubious information" even mean anyway? It's not in the list of reasons why the bot reverts edits. Please obtain approval for and document any new additions to your bot, otherwise it may be blocked simply for being unapproved, three-revert rule or not – Gurch 11:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- I don't see how a block of the operator would be justified, especially as Voice of All is an established, respected, and trusted user. The three-revert rule does not apply to reversions of blatant vandalism, which is what VoABot II usually reverts, and when VoABot II makes a mistake... well, it's a bot, and it doesn't have human judgment. For the same reason, it can't become "involved" in a content dispute; it can only become an unwilling participant. Even given the lack of judgment, the benefits of this bot to the project outweigh the drawbacks. Please continue to report incidents such as these to the operator so the bot can be tweaked to prevent such situations from happening in the future. — madman bum and angel 15:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- If a user repeatedly reverts an edit that was made in good faith, that's edit-warring, regardless of whether or not the user is aware of it. If the user is a bot, then the bot's owner is effectively edit-warring through their bot account; if they don't take steps to correct this there's no reason why they should be treated any differently to someone who is edit warring using their own account.
- I am sick and tired of hearing "it's only a bot, it doesn't have human judgement, it's bound to make mistakes" as an excuse for committing blockable offenses through a bot account. A bot that makes errors of such magnitude should never have been approved in the first place – it is trivial to check programatically whether you are about to revert to the same revision for the fourth time in a row. As someone who has been several times warned and once actually blocked for "violating the three-revert rule" when reverting obvious vandalism, I am appalled that people are able to get away with genuine violations of the rule by hiding behind the "oh, it's only a bot" excuse.
- The bot policy states quite clearly that a bot must be harmless. If I edited the way this bot has done, either anonymously or from a regular account, I would have recieved several blocks for vandalism and at least one for violation of the three-revert rule. If I was logged in I would probably be blocked indefinitely. That is not harmless – Gurch 16:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- In any case, this problem (which I don't dispute was a problem) has been fixed. — madman bum and angel 16:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Annoying headings on user warnings
I'm wondereing why VoAbot II attaches warning messages such as this to user talk pages. For one thing, the heading doesn't meet with the recommendations at WP:UW which suggest that such warnings be grouped by month. Secondly, the thing is annoyingly redundant since there's another link to the vandalised article just a few words later in the very first line of the warning. Is it really necessary to link twice to a vandalised article for each warning? I'm just thinking that, at some point after a page move or something, that's two links on a 'What links here' page instead of just one, swelling the apparent size of clean-ups needlessly. So, in summary, it appears, to me, to be non-standard and redundant. Is there a reason you've chosen to code it this way? — Dave (Talk | contribs) 16:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- (I know, I know -- replying to myself!) Sorry, VoA, I hadn't noticed that I was duplicating a report from 11 hr previously. I spoke of redundancy and then I was guilty of the same... In any case, I did add another reason why the heading format seems suspect. Cheers! — Dave (Talk | contribs) 16:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- The warning are very old, I'll have to change that. Voice-of-All 20:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
VoABot warning when beaten
I have been doing some vandalism patrolling recently, and at least twice I have reverted faster than VoABot but had it warn the user, saying that the edit was reverted by a bot. Since I'm not a bot, I've overwrote the warnings with my own, manually, in these cases, but it's a problem you might want to consider - the bot should warn after reverting, and only if the revert succeeds (i.e. iff the bot is not beaten). Otherwise, great bot. :) Nihiltres{t.l} 00:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's a tricky issue to get around cleanly. Voice-of-All 00:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- Well, my personal algorithm is
- 1) revert article
- 2) examine article history
- 3) if my revert edit appears
- 4) issue user warning
- Otherwise, my revert didn't take which 99.9% of the time someone else beat me on the revert, so it's their responsibility to issue the warning. Is there something not obvious about this algorithm which wouldn't be good to implement? —EncMstr 00:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- I'd want a quick way for a bot to do it. The bot may revert the same page more than once or edits may have been made since the bot reverted but before the bot gets around to check it (not very likely, but possible). It would probably need some rough timestamp checking. Voice-of-All 01:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- Well, my personal algorithm is
VoABot and AIV
It is listing vandals at WP:AIAV after only one warning. I think it reports them if it vandalizes the same article more than once? Regardless it produces reports that backlog AIAV because they haven't been warned to a level 4, can you modify this? KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 10:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- It is still doing it. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 00:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- I've moved these comments to a new thread, because I feared they were being missed. Hope you don't mind. Happy editing. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 01:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- Still doing it. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 12:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- I've also notice that after reverting a vandalism edit on Maya civilization, the bot posted twice for the same vandalism edit at 02:10. Probably a rare occasion, that this bug happens.--JForget 02:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- This should be fixed now. Voice-of-All 02:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- I've also notice that after reverting a vandalism edit on Maya civilization, the bot posted twice for the same vandalism edit at 02:10. Probably a rare occasion, that this bug happens.--JForget 02:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Is the Bot correctly upgrading its warnings? I've seen quite a few examples like User talk:24.22.126.118 where the Bot seems to have given rather mild warnings twice and reported to AIV. Should the second warning not threaten a block (something along the lines of test3)? WjBscribe 03:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi! Could you please add <!-- Template:uw-(whatsoever) --> to your warning? Otherwise scripts and bots are not able to identify this template. Please don't warn users not you've reverted (but I). And at least please fix this ([2]) so that the account will be reported. … And not every removal is vandalism esp. if the summary is used. Thanks! —DerHexer (Talk) 19:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)