Anomie is still around, mostly to maintain AnomieBOT. But after the WMF proved that office politics are more important to them than seemingly anything else, and otherwise generally seem more concerned with their own image than substance, Anomie is not engaging in technical work on MediaWiki.
Despite T360488 asking them not to, Toolforge admins have gone ahead and broken AnomieBOT's scripts. Keeping things running properly will likely require manual intervention until they fix that or give me a usable workaround.
Live status for all AnomieBOT tasks is available at Toolforge.
Regarding the OrphanReferenceFixer and TagDater, please note:
AnomieBOT is not an anti-vandal bot, so complaints about AnomieBOT "hiding" or not reverting vandalism are out of place here.
AnomieBOT's current strategy is "wait 10 minutes to an hour or so to let ClueBot, VoABotII, other anti-vandal bots, or RC Patrollers fix the vandalism". I am open to specific suggestions on detecting vandalism, but keep in mind that the false positive rate of any method must be near zero to be useful.
AnomieBOT honors {{inuse}}; please use it if you have excessive edit conflicts.
If the reference errors or undated tags were caused by vandalism, just revert AnomieBOT's edits along with the vandal's. AnomieBOT will not be offended.
If AnomieBOT made a mistake in correcting a reference error or dating a tag, please correct the error by hand and report the URL of the problem diff below. Don't just revert the bot without fixing the error, or AnomieBOT is likely to "fix" it again in the same broken way before I get a chance to fix the bug.
If you have a problem with T11790, please take the issue up there. You will be having the problem with more than just AnomieBOT's edits.
Thank you.
Regarding deletions, please note:
If you are here because you think AnomieBOT III deleted an article, please check again. AnomieBOT III deletes redirects when someone else deletes the article the redirect pointed to, and you almost certainly want to talk to that person instead.
If you are here because AnomieBOT added {{old AfD multi}} to an article when the old AfD was about a different person with the same name, just remove it. The bot has no way to tell whether it's the same person or a different one.
Latest comment: 3 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Why is the link to a linkedin page an unreliable source? I assume a website could be like that - but on the other hand a website should be a good source of information and confirmation of data.
Could I remove the comment in the bio I prepared?
thanks Lemonidess (talk) 14:36, 8 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Asking for protection of the article Paola Cortellesi from non registered recidive vandal who also admitted they are doing it for personal ideological and political beliefs and keeps causing disruption. 151.38.224.195 (talk) 20:14, 13 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 month ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Help! I can't find the featured article link in Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 12, 2024 in order to populate Template:TFA title/May 12, 2024. Please correct the link or create the template manually. When you have fixed this issue, please change the section title (e.g. append " - Fixed") or remove this section completely. I will repost the notice if the page is still broken or is re-broken. Thanks! AnomieBOT II⚡ 00:01, 11 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Not at all familiar with these templates, so rather than just removing I'm leaving it here for further review. Primefac (talk) 06:24, 11 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Two years ago, after getting tired of edge cases when trying to scrape links out of the wikitext, I switched the bot to looking for {{TFAFULL}} which is a lot easier to parse for. In this case I see the {{TFAFULL}} was present originally but was removed in Special:Diff/1215188470byUser:MaranoFan. Looks like I forgot to update the bot's complaint message, and also that I forgot to ever add a check for the day being added to Template:TFA title/data.json. Anomie⚔ 13:10, 11 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 month ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Would it be possible to get some information on exactly how this works? In particular, I'd like to understand why it didn't activate for this edit. Further details here. Sunrise(talk) 01:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
At the moment the bot only checks pages linked in edit summaries. I turned off the linked-pages check in July 2023 because it seemed too often to cause false positives when people name a ref based on the newspaper or website. Anomie⚔ 00:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the reply, and I'm glad to hear the edit summary check is active. For the edit I'm asking about (which was in 2019), why does it seem that neither the edit summary check nor the linked-pages check worked correctly? Sunrise(talk) 19:54, 14 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Digging into old on-wiki logs, I find it says "Terminology of alternative medicine: Revision 894510465 is transcluding something too b0rken to fix (Ref contains <ref>), skipping". Due to limitations of the expandtemplates API action (e.g. T235882), the bot can't handle refs inside of refs, for example when {{refn}} is used to contain a <ref>.
In 2021 I added support for some templates, including {{refn}} and {{efn}}, so that's not so much of a problem anymore. The bot still doesn't support other templates like {{r}}or{{sfn}} that do more than just add a single ref though. Anomie⚔ 00:30, 15 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
You seem confused. You linked to an edit where AnomieBOT added dates to {{citation needed}} tags added by a human editor in a previous edit, which likely means you should talk to that human rather than posting here. Anomie⚔ 11:32, 22 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hey Anomie! Per a rough consensus at this discussion, it seems there's some need for additional automated archiving of peer review pages. Since AnomieBOT already performs a very similar task, would you be willing to expand the PeerReviewArchiver function to close reviews that have gone unanswered for over three months? Let me know if you have any questions! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:50, 11 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'll post at the discussion there. Anomie⚔ 11:31, 11 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 8 days ago7 comments5 people in discussion
Hi Anomie, I hope you're doing well. I noticed on a Russian village article that AnomieBOT had added a date parameter for the {{Infobox Russian inhabited locality}} infobox back in July 2020, when date parameters are invalid – see Roza, Chelyabinsk Oblast's history for an example. You might already be aware of this, but I thought I'd let you know to avoid the same issue happening in the future. I've rollbacked the ones that were still rollbackable, I don't know if you want to try and reverse it for the ones remaining that aren't. Thanks! --Ferien (talk) 17:49, 12 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Redrose64, indeed, no examples of it happening recently. Was just looking through some random articles and came across it thinking it might need attention. Thanks to everyone for finding the source of the problem so quickly :) --Ferien (talk) 21:00, 13 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
I've traced it to this edit. Anomie, that's your bot too; was the |date=__DATE__ code intentional here? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:37, 12 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
That's right. Specifically, it was added in October 2010, and finally removed in March 2023. Since AnomieBOT was told it was a dated maintenance template, it unsubstified it and it dated instances of it on pages that happened to be in categories indicating that some maintenance template was missing a |date=. Anomie⚔ 23:23, 12 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
This is the diff labelled: "add & merge list from SmackBot." I referred to this list in my interview with the Signpost. At this point the infobox's code contained: {{fact|date={{{date|}}}}} so it was necessary to date this. You will find my 2009 objection to this practice at Template_talk:Infobox_Russian_inhabited_locality/Archive_1#Forkit. However the user in question contributed a huge amount to our coverage of Russia, so it was probably a wise decision not press the point overmuch. All the best: RichFarmbrough 18:38, 16 June 2024 (UTC).Reply
This seems like something for people active at TFD to decide. Which does not include me, and at a quick check of your recent contributions does not seem to include you either. Anomie⚔ 21:27, 16 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Not really, it's common sense. You are making extra edits to pages that are going to be deleted. The edits are harmful, not helpful. QED. All the best: RichFarmbrough 10:45, 17 June 2024 (UTC).Reply
In case I wasn't clear, by "in their own namespace" I mean: for Template:Foo pages like Template:Foo/Core, Template:Foo/Documentation, Template:Sandbox, Template:Foo/TemplateData and so forth. All the best: RichFarmbrough 10:48, 17 June 2024 (UTC).Reply
Just thought I'd drop a note that AnomieBOT III is off its usual 6:02 report issuing schedule which it generally maintains like clockwork. It's a little unpredictable and wacky right now, but there are also problems running queries with Quarry and Community Tech bot has been off=kilter with issuing its Wikipedia:Database reports/Orphaned talk pages, too so I guess there could be database problems. But I thought I'd let you know. Typically, I use Quarry as a backup for AnomieBOT III to find broken redirect but that's been unavailable for days now. Thanks. LizRead!Talk! 22:20, 16 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Seems like things are running now. I did just restart the bot to apply an update to the PeerReviewArchiver task. Given the timing, possibly it was in the middle of the BrokenRedirectDeleter task and had to restart. OTOH, I also see that for the past few days it has been taking longer to process than it had been, mostly without any obvious explanation in the logs. So possibly there's also increased database load making its queries slower. Anomie⚔ 23:41, 16 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
That might explain its irregularity in its reports along with why other bots are having the same problem. Still no update on Quarry issues though but that's not your concern. LizRead!Talk! 05:02, 18 June 2024 (UTC)Reply