RMCD bot

Some sections have been refactored to consolidate multiple reports of the same issues.

Fixed or otherwise resolved issues are archived, so this page serves as a sort of to-do list.

Frequently asked questions

Problems caused by syntax redundancy, when an RM is modified while open

See also: Template talk:Requested move/Archive 2 § Move links, and Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 June 16 § Template:Requested move/end

A relevant January 2013 discussion on my talk

Are you familiar with {{Requested move old}} (originally named {{Movereq old}})? As far as I can tell, it wasn't documented anywhere, until I just added it to WP:Template messages/Moving#After (potentially) controversial move requests are closed. Although it's been around since 24 December 2010‎, when Rich Farmbrough created it (what I've seen of his work is of highest technical quality), I haven't found any talk page discussion of it anywhere. But some editors have used it—it's transcluded on some 59 talk pages (the last two are my doing). Just amazed that I haven't noticed this template until today. Wbm1058 (talk) 21:42, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

How Rich announced his new template: diff – Wbm1058 (talk) 21:53, 11 January 2013 (UTC) ...it stayed in the instructions until this edit. Wbm1058 (talk) 22:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

personally I don't see the point of Richard's template. I would suggest that automating the merge procedure would be a much better bang for the buck than further perfecting the automated RM procedure, particularly as the algorithms for mulit-move requests and proposed merges are similar and proposed merges are such a mess -- some of them have been around for may years. -- PBS (talk) 00:11, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

His template could be used to eliminate some redundancy and in my opinion is more elegant than harej's solution for archiving closed RMs. Eventually I would like any similar solutions for merges to be implemented consistently with the RM solutions. But, yes, further teaking here need not hold up some temporary solutions for merges, since that's such a mess... Wbm1058 (talk) 15:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I am missing knowledge of what harej's solution is, and why it is thought necessary. Surly to close a RM one just uses {{poll top}}. Why is anything else needed? -- PBS (talk) 18:02, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually you should use the more specific {{subst:RM top}}. The old and new page names are included as parameters in {{requested move/dated}}. Closing instructions call for removal of {{requested move/dated}}. It needs to be removed so the bot doesn't pick it up, as the bot looks for transclusions of that template. So, to keep a record of the old and new page names in the archived section on the talk page, harej created {{subst:Requested move}}, which creates the {{requested move/dated}} template, and redundantly writes a list of old and new pages outside of the /dated template, so the list will still be there after /dated is removed. Now, if instead of removing it, we simply change its name to {{requested move old}}—or {{requested move/old}}—voila, now we don't need to write the redundant list outside the template. The redundancy can cause issues, when an editor corrects their typo or changes their mind about what the new name should be, they need to make the change in two places. – Wbm1058 (talk) 21:52, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Issue with bot's function?

I was looking at some RfDs today, and found these two strange diffs on Talk:Cherkasy Raion:

[1]

[2]

I'm not sure what's going on there, but those two diffs are telling the editor/user to go to Talk:Cherkasy Raion from Talk:Cherkasy Raion, the same talk page. Steel1943 (talk) 07:22, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

• There's a third diff now, taking the exact same action as the previous two diffs:

[3]

...What's going on with this bot? Steel1943 (talk) 09:52, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

It looks like the bot was confused after this edit. There is a second, redundant place where corrections of this sort need to be made, and I covered it here. I'm aware of this issue and eventually may simplify the templates to remove this redundancy. Wbm1058 (talk) 23:32, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Line_1,_Beijing_Subway#Requested_move_29_December_2017 malformed?

Hi wbm1058, I haven't been able to figure out why the move request at Talk:Line_1,_Beijing_Subway#Requested_move_29_December_2017 is listed by the bot as malformed. It seems to have been set up correctly.--Aervanath (talk) 21:15, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I fixed it. wbm1058 (talk) 21:36, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Anthony Davis pagemove

I failed to include the secondary page move in the template.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:55, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Fixed. This is another case of problems with modifying open RMs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wbm1058 (talk • contribs) 14:33, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Bad edit

This seems to be a bad edit. Korny O'Near (talk) 00:55, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Korny O'Near: Hopefully, this "new1" parameter-fixing edit will fix the problem. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:06, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Never mind, I didn't notice that parameter. I guess it wasn't the bot's fault after all. Thanks! Korny O'Near (talk) 01:42, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

This is another example of #Problems caused by syntax redundancy, when an RM is modified while open, caused by this 22:53, 3 October 2021 edit by Tbhotch. That edit needed to change "Disney" to "American" in two places. Now the "problems" have expanded to include the subject notices (which I added as a later enhancement). – wbm1058 (talk) 14:17, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Bot is deleting wikiproject banners

see [4] where the bot deleted a wikiproject banner with the summary "Notifying of move discussion" -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 23:09, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

This is interesting. The bot did just fine when it first posted the notice at 03:00, 6 March 2013.

Seven days later, after leaving the notice undisturbed for a week, at 00:14, 13 March 2013 it removed the project template and updated its timestamp.

That's not the only talk page banner it disturbed with that update. Also:

• Talk:Malling, Moselle – at 00:15, 13 March 2013
• Talk:Monastyrysche Raion – at 00:16, 13 March 2013

This seems to be some one-off glitch—I've not seen this bug before. It may be a side-effect of some other issue, and could be hard to track down. Wbm1058 (talk) 13:43, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Whatever the bug is, it is causing a wholesale overwrite of the entire talk page, from what I can see, it deletes the entire talk page, and replaces it with the new notice. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 06:18, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Excellent observation! It could be something more like this type of problem. I'll put it on my list to check the code to see if any edit checks can be made to prevent it. Wbm1058 (talk) 15:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:Requested moves/Current discussions update of 00:16, 13 March 2013 doesn't really give any clues, unless it's related to the "Time could not be ascertained" bug. I should fix that one. – Wbm1058 (talk) 14:00, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I think I finally realize the cause of this (an API function's failure to retrieve the page content when asked), and will get right to implementing the solution, which is to not update the page at all rather than break it. Wbm1058 (talk) 20:15, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

 Fixed, hopefully. Wbm1058 (talk) 20:43, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Not fixed yet. The bot needs to be able to tell the difference between a page that has no content because it doesn't exist (normal), and a page which appears to have no content (but probably really does) because the server was down or bits got lost on the Internet. Wbm1058 (talk) 14:44, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

See how Reflinks deals with this. Wbm1058 (talk) 18:07, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Followup after moves and/or closes

bot on overdrive on a closed RM

this was just added by RMCD bot re an RM closed weeks ago.....how do you turn the damn thing off?Skookum1 (talk) 18:15, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I think the move template – not the discussion, or the decision – should be removed when discussion is closed. The same thing happened with an RM I posted some weeks ago. Remind the closing editor. HandsomeFella (talk) 18:42, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

See this edit. I then reverted the bot's additions of the discussion on the fresh redirect pages. HandsomeFella (talk) 18:45, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, the issue at Talk:Alpine skiing at the 2014 Winter Olympics – Men's super-G was that the RM closer neglected to either remove the {{requested move/dated}} template or replace it with {{requested move/old}}, which is intended to be a valid alternative. These are generally caught fairly promptly, as they populate Category:Fulfilled page move requests. Actually, the oversight was fixed within an hour and a half, but the bot runs every 15 mins. Now, the deal with Talk:Mi'kmaq people is that the bot was getting confused between the two requested moves at Talk:Chipewyan people. The first RM was closed with a {{requested move/old}}, but an issue with the bot's coding resulted in this template being used in error for the second, still open RM. I did a {{subst:requested move/old}} which worked around the bot issue, and reverted the bot's bad edits. – Wbm1058 (talk) 01:57, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Closure of talk page entries for a multi-move request?

When a multi-move request is approved, should a bot be closing the entries that were placed on all of the talk pages? Cf. Omega1 Aquarii. Just curious; it seems odd to leave inquiry messages dangling out there. Regards, RJH (talk) 22:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Nah, I think most people who see them will look at the timestamp and realise the RM has probably been closed by now. Jenks24 (talk) 23:15, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

If we can get the damn bot ever working again, I think it's not a bad idea that it leaves a terse note like:

Automated note: the discussion has been closed.--User:RM bot 00:48, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

This is what I did in the past before we ever had a bot, and do now that we're manually updating. I don't think it's a pressing issue though.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:48, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

A note to optionally do this (leave a terse note) could be added to Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions, along with the notes to update or add {{Oldmoves}}, {{Old RM multi}} or {{Oldmove}}. There is no transcluded template or category flagging these messages, so once the RM is closed it would be hard for a bot to find them. The closing instructions are getting pretty complicated, so a possibility would be to see if a new program could be created to assist this closing process. – Wbm1058 (talk) 16:30, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Notifying talk pages that are named in multi-move requests

It's nice that the bot can be used to notify talk pages that are named in multi-move requests. What is needed is a follow-up notification to those talk pages that reports on the result of the request. 67.100.127.30 (talk) 19:45, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

See Talk:Zain for an example. I implemented a manual solution, but I agree that an automated solution along these lines would be helpful. – Wbm1058 (talk) 20:55, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Removing notice of open discussion

The bot removed the requested move template on Other (philosophy) and unlisted it from Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Current_discussions despite the fact that the discussion does not appear to have been closed. 9³ 14:59, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

An editor, presumably unintentionally, removed the template, effectively "closing" the discussion as far as the bot was concerned. I've reverted that template removal, so the notice should be re-posted in a few minutes. wbm1058 (talk) 17:41, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Bot-created searchable archives

On my back burner is a possible enhancement (see WT:Requested moves#Bot-created searchable archives). – wbm1058 (talk) 16:08, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Requests for comment on requested moves

See Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/Archive 28 § Use requests for comment for supplemental RM notifications? Note to myself to document or develop a workaround. – Wbm1058 (talk) 23:28, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

• My edit to add a sub-section header. That doesn't work.
• Another editor's fix: put the RM template before the RfC template.
• Bot's edit to fix the RfC subpage.

— Wbm1058 (talk) 23:48, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Someone recently inserted an RfC into an open RM. While version 7.52 (19 August 2021) now allows insertion of a single line between the section heading and {{Requested move/dated}} (e.g. {{notavote}}), in this case there are two lines after Legobot adds a "User:DoNotArchiveUntil", and RMCD bot still flags multiple inserted lines as a malformed request. Figuring out how to make the regex that supports two or more inserted lines is harder than you might think, at least for this guy who doesn't use regex often enough to become super proficient with it. Since the RfC was reverted anyway, I'm just keeping this on my back burner as a low-priority item. – wbm1058 (talk) 21:39, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

The discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment §Specifying that RfCs should not be listed on AfDs led to this 5 June 2019 edit to add Wikipedia:Requests for comment § What not to use the RfC process for.

However, the recent Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Capitalization of NFL draft article titles discussion has set a precedent that Wikipedia:Requests for comment may be used separately and outside of RM, to settle particularly contentious page-moving disputes. – wbm1058 (talk) 13:37, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Broke formatting

The bot displays broken formatting when you try to include multiple suggested targets in one RM, as I tried to do here. Pppery 20:42, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

If you are uncertain about what the new page names should be, then you should use the "?" form of request, as demonstrated in the last example in Wikipedia:Template messages/Moving/Requested. The bot reads the template parameters and uses those only to generate the listings at WP:RM. You can do whatever you want with the list of moves which is shown outside the template, as the bot doesn't care about or look at those. wbm1058 (talk) 00:09, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

No, the {{requested move/dated}} transclusion on that page was properly formatted showing only one target, and the bot failed to properly skip over the list shown outside the request. As you can see here, the bot included by proposed alternate title as if it were part of the reason. Pppery 01:08, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

OK, the bot was trying to skip over all that and jump to the reason, but a couple of curve-balls tricked it. (1) the bot is looking for an en-dash as the separator indicating where the reason starts. Now, it knows enough to ignore false-positive en-dashes when they are included inside the standard-formatted request. Since your "or this–alternatives" were outside of the expected standard formatting, the first one found was interpreted as the beginning of the reason. Then you get a mangled reason because inside the reason are what appear to be more standard-formatted requests that the bot strips out of the reason. This is all tricky regex to implement and I don't know regex like the back of my hand. I'm not going to attempt to support this, because it is theoretically impossible to create an RM in this format. The idea behind using {{subst:requested move}} is to prevent unsupported syntax in requests, but of course I can't stop editors from hacking up perfectly well-formatted requests after their initial creation. Suggest you use {{subst:requested move}} to create a "name to be determined via discussion" request, and then put your list of alternatives in a separate section below your brief rationale for the move request and your signature. Thus, the discussion of alternatives will only be seen on the talk page hosting the discussion and not get copied to the WP:RM page. wbm1058 (talk) 02:41, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Which would take up a lot of unnecessary space, considering the request involves over 100 articles. Would it make sense for the bot to ignore en-dashes in links? Pppery 02:45, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not keen on huge proposals like this. Maybe you could start a more general discussion about the naming conventions on the talk page for the relevant naming conventions or WikiProject? If you can get a consensus on naming conventions, then perhaps these become technical requests. wbm1058 (talk) 03:07, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Which is what eventually happened at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (US stations)/NYC Subway RfC. These moves eventually happened after that discussion closed. – wbm1058 (talk) 12:23, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

December 2017–January 2018 changes:

• On 23 December 2017‎ Nardog changed Module:Requested move to "don't add the dash if multiple", without discussing the matter with me first
• At 14:20, 25 December 2017, rather than revert Nardog, I made bot version 6.55 accommodate the removal of the dash from multiple move requests in Module:Requested move (thanks for calling me in to work on the holiday!)
• At 22:08, 19 January 2018 Pppery reverted Nardog's change: "seems to break bot parsing for users who have a dash in their signature"

My "accommodation" code for this change remains in place. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:47, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages

When a disambiguation page without a talk page is requested to be moved on another talk page, the bot should automatically place {{WikiProject Disambiguation}} on top of the "Move discussion in progress" notice while creating the talk page. I have manually added the template to Talk:United States v. Lee (disambiguation). GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 20:19, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done in v 6.81 – wbm1058 (talk) 12:26, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

@Wbm1058: I noticed something is still wrong with the patch. Namely, Talk:CMY (disambiguation) was not actually created with the WikiProject on it. Please try to identify the error with the code that causes this, and fix it. Also, if page A is being requested to be moved to B, page B currently redirects to a disambiguation page C other than page A, and page C does not already have a talk page, then the bot should place {{WikiProject Disambiguation}} as well while creating the talk page for page C. This did not happen with Talk:Tremont Avenue (disambiguation), for example. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:37, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done in v 6.92 – it's always easier to make a fix while an RM is open, as that provides a use-case for testing. I verified the patch with Talk:Tremont Avenue (disambiguation). However the Talk:CMY (disambiguation) wasn't easy to reproduce. I found that with most move requests of this nature the bot doesn't post a notice (i.e. it doesn't create a new page) as there is no point in creating a notice for a page with no content. So I dug a little deeper to see what was happening here. This request was created by an editor who seemed unware of disambiguation policies and conventions, and who failed to follow the instructions for starting an RM via {{subst:Requested move}}. The bot didn't pick up the request until another editor added a section header for it. At the time the "content" that made the bot decide that a notice was needed was a fork of CMY, which was later changed to the {{r to disambiguation page}} that should have been there all along (and would not have had a talk page notice created for it). So, given the cause of the issue was user error, and the user error didn't break anything significantly, I'm not going to try to accommodate this now; very low-priority issue. If there's anything for the bot to do here, I think it should be able to recognize the existence of a disambiguation fork, and report that as an error, while refraining from creating the Talk:CMY (disambiguation) page that the user error triggered. – wbm1058 (talk) 21:08, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Feature request

Currently at the top of Wikipedia:Requested moves/Current discussions, Wikipedia:Requested moves/Current discussions (alt), and Wikipedia:Requested moves/Current discussions/Table, there is a lead section with an ombox and some text. Could you move this content into templates and have the bot transclude these instead? That way we can edit the text and add special notices if needed. —Guanaco 10:34, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Bot wars

Page set up to archive threads after 5 days (120 hours) with no new comments causes an RM to be archived before it was closed

Hi wbm1058

I hope I'm in the right place... the headers of this page are confusing to me.

Anyway, as you obviously found this, have a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Medal_of_Honor_(series)&action=history for an unfortunate interaction between bots which Dekimasu seems to have sorted out.

One result was that for a while, the discuss link at WP:RME pointed to Talk:Medal of Honor (series)/Archives/2018/March rather than to the discussion. Andrewa (talk) 05:13, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

To be clear, the discussion was there (and open) in the archive, although it was showing up as a malformed request on the RMC page. When I reverted the bot, I also deleted the empty archive as G6, routine cleanup. Dekimasuよ! 05:29, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I stand corrected. I just followed the link to an archive page, knew it was wrong, and looked for why, but by the time I found out very much more you'd fixed it. Andrewa (talk) 05:51, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Now I've seen everything. I suppose my bot should patrol for stupid archiving configurations. This page was set up to archive threads after 5 days (120 hours) with no new comments. Yeah, that's a problem when requested moves are scheduled to run for seven days and nobody comments on the RM after the second day that it was open! wbm1058 (talk) 10:57, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Nothing is foolproof, because fools are so ingenious! I certainly wouldn't modify the bot on one occurrence. If it became a regular thing, it may be better to modify the archive bot... say, have a template adding a banner and category to the talk page, to indicate that the page is temporarily not to be archived, which might stop some stupid manual archiving too (I said might... hmmm, but that needs a mod to your bot too, to add and remove the template). But even if I'd figured out what the problem was, it was something I think you needed to see. Andrewa (talk) 16:44, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Changed it to two weeks, 1 year is overkill for any kind of archiving. --QEDK (後 🌸 桜) 16:45, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

OK, and if the RM is relisted then the two weeks automatically restarts for that section, because relisting is itself an edit even if there's no other activity... that sounds logical to me, interested in other views. Andrewa (talk) 17:38, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

There will be no talk page threads most of the time with that setting. Two weeks is an extremely short period for all but the most active articles; I'm not sure why there would be a preference for the talk page to be empty. Actually, given that there is so little action on the page, manual archiving is probably a better option. Also, the RMCD bot isn't updating the moves page now, I think. Is it down or being reworked? Dekimasuよ! 17:41, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I have collated the 4 existing archives into one archive that's still only 15K and turned off the auto-archiving. There's no need for archives that look like this, because they don't help us search for relevant previous discussions. On a normal talk page, it would be just fine to have all the talk topics since the creation of the article over ten years ago still on the main talk page, but I haven't taken the step of dearchiving everything. Dekimasuよ! 17:48, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Good points all. But this is on archiving rather than on the RM bot. Dekimasu and QEDK, I'd be very interested in continuing this discussion, but I think we should find a better place for it, and leave the bot and its owner in (exonerated) peace. Andrewa (talk) 17:57, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree. However, the real reason I came by again was to get confirmation that Wbm knows the bot is down, and he does, so I feel reassured as well. Dekimasuよ! 18:07, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Or, maybe have a flag on a section that says not to be archived and is respected by archive bots? And add that flag to every properly raised RM (needs a mod to one template)? And remove (or override with another flag, that sounds simpler but is a bit ugly) the no-archive-section flag when the bot sees it as closed (and maybe make it available for immediate archive... that could use the archive-section-anyway override flag and makes it a lot less ugly).

No action on one occurrence, as I said above. Andrewa (talk) 17:53, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Dekimasu re archiving. I'm trying to update to a newer version of PHP, and running into problems. I'm about to give up and revert to the version that works. Then I can futz with trying to upgrade on my other system. I wasn't expecting updating to be so difficult. wbm1058 (talk) 17:54, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

• Added a bit of code to the placeholder on the page, not sure if I can do anything else. --QEDK (後 🌸 桜) 18:33, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Better option may be a bot to patrol all talk pages transcluding User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis and check their archiving configurations, and report all pages with overly aggressive archiving setups, including setups changed by _cough_ *vandals*. – wbm1058 (talk) 19:42, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

RMCD bot: edit conflict

I'm not sure what this edit is about... did the bot get confused somehow (or am I)? I've already closed the RM as move, I hope that was OK! Andrewa (talk) 19:39, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

This rhymes with similar "edit-conflict" issues I previously fixed; see User talk:RMCD bot/Archive 1#RMCD bot alert. Unfortunately the bot's console log overwrites itself each time the bot runs, so the internal diagnostic report is lost already. I'll probably need to intentionally reproduce this scenario to follow the processing and confirm a fix, though I may be able to figure it out with a code-walkthrough. Thanks for the report. – wbm1058 (talk) 22:43, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

All good. It's a brilliant system overall. "Unfortunately, Andy, the closer we get to true artificial intelligence, the closer we also get to artificial stupidity." - My favourite AI expert who may not want to be named. Andrewa (talk) 06:36, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

An edit conflict that invoked "Error 2"

See Talk:Darksiders#Move discussion in progress. – wbm1058 (talk) 21:20, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Strange placement of notice

I've just closed a requested move at List of skin conditions, but I noticed that RMCD bot seems to have placed the RM notice in a strange place, it is in ref 43. I was wondering if there is any reason you can see for this bug. Danski454 (talk) 12:03, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Danski454, thanks for reporting this. Ideally I would have been notified about this sooner, while the RM was still open. The bot endeavors to comply with MOS:ORDER, so I suspect it got confused by this template:

{{cite journal |author=Ushiki T |title=Collagen fibers, reticular fibers and elastic fibers. A comprehensive understanding from a morphological viewpoint |journal=Arch Histol Cytol |volume=65 |issue=2 |pages=109–26 |year=2002 |pmid=12164335 |doi=10.1679/aohc.65.109 |url=https://www.healthyki.com/2019/01/amazing-facts-about-acne-all-will-shock.html }} |date=December 2017 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}

thinking that template belonged with the hatnotes placed "before the lead section" and thus the notice was placed after that template. It's not immediately apparent to me why. This involves regex (regular expressions) which aren't easy to code to perfection at times. As this seems to be a one-off that I've never seen before, I'm giving it a mid-priority, meaning that the next time something like this happens while an RM is open, I expect I would likely bump up the priority then and try to fix it before the RM closed. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:16, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

On second look at this a drive-by IP partially removed a template, leaving bad syntax that my bot wasn't smart enough to detect – This edit fixed it. wbm1058 (talk) 14:52, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Twisted RM

Please take a look at the RM at Template talk:Infobox medical condition (new)#Requested move 3 July 2019. Is it SOP for this type of malformed RM to not end up in that section at WP:RM? Take a look at that RM's ridiculous entry at Wikipedia:Requested moves#July 3, 2019. "I am so confused!" — Vinnie Barbarino – Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there  22:57, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Please note at this point that the nom has withdrawn and moved the template back to its previous name. Still doesn't mean I'm not confused, tho. :>) In case you didn't see it, the entry on the WP:RM page was Template:Infobox medical condition (new) → Template:Infobox medical condition (new). Weird. Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there  00:06, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

So you closed the RM as moved page Template:Infobox medical condition (new) to Template:Infobox medical condition. Then the move was boldly reversed, rather than asking you to reopen it. So what we had was {{requested move/dated|Template:Infobox medical condition (new)}} sitting on Template talk:Infobox medical condition (new). The system doesn't assume that this is a malformed request, but rather a fulfilled move request. {{requested move/dated}} displayed The request to rename this article to Template:Infobox medical condition (new) has been carried out. and populated Category:Fulfilled page move requests. So it was in a state that should have been fairly promptly patrolled.

Nonetheless I see that Template:Requested move seems to be missing an edit check to flag requests to move a page to its current location as an {{error}}, and I suppose the bot should also check for edits to previously-submitted RMs to do that. – wbm1058 (talk) 21:46, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Bot not detecting some transclusions of {{Reflist-talk}}

RMCD bot isn't putting some redirects to {{Reflist-talk}} on a new line, causing rendering issues as seen in two entries of the current backlog. In case it's useful, there is a full list of all redirects to {{Reflist-talk}} below.

Extended content

{{Reflist-talk}} {{Reflist talk}} {{Talk-reflist}} {{Reftalk}} {{Talk reflist}} {{Talk ref}} {{Ref talk}} {{Reference talk}} {{Talk reference}} {{Talkref}} {{Tref}} {{TREF}} {{Talk page reference}} {{Ref-talk}} {{Reflisttalk}} {{Inlineref}} {{Reflist-quote}} {{Section references}} {{Talk page reflist}} {{REftalk}} {{Talk page-reflist}} {{Talk refs}} {{reflist-talk}} {{reflist talk}} {{talk-reflist}} {{reftalk}} {{talk reflist}} {{talk ref}} {{ref talk}} {{reference talk}} {{talk reference}} {{talkref}} {{tref}} {{tREF}} {{talk page reference}} {{ref-talk}} {{reflisttalk}} {{inlineref}} {{reflist-quote}} {{section references}} {{talk page reflist}} {{rEftalk}} {{talk page-reflist}} {{talk refs}}

Danski454 (talk) 21:35, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

 Fixed in version 6.87 – when I made the formatting fix to support this template in January 2015, there was only one alias for this template, which the bot supported. But then, starting in May 2015, the floodgates started opening. Three different editors added a single new alias in May, June, and July 2015. Then an editor covered most of the bases by adding 8 aliases in September 2015. Two more editors added two new aliases in January and October 2016, bringing the total number of names for the template to 15. The bot is now up to date as-of October 2016 with support for these 15. Right, since then seven different editors have added seven more aliases (total 22), between November 2016–May 2019. These are of dubious value and are thinly used. Maybe I'll update support for these later. Redirects aren't that cheap, when they waste programmer time. – wbm1058 (talk) 18:32, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Misplaced move notification

For some strange reason, this notofocation has been placed on Talk:North Macedonian passport. I do not know if it can just be removed, or if the bot will renew it. --T*U (talk) 15:20, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

A notoble notofocation no doubt! EEng 19:58, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

That notice first went up after MSGJ closed the RM without removing the template. From the bot's perspective, the RM isn't closed until the template is removed. The bot kept posting the misplaced notice until the template was removed. This could be an unintended side effect of my code refactoring in order to solve this issue (or not). In any event, it's now another item on my bug list. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:32, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

OK, I think this is another instance of the issue reported at #bot on overdrive on a closed RM, a longstanding open issue. I think I can fix this by checking Category:Fulfilled page move requests and upon finding the RM in that category, report it as a malformed request. Probably should have fixed this a lot sooner, but better late than never ;) wbm1058 (talk) 17:58, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Modlin

Problem also recently happened at Talk:Modlin. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:43, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• After the RM was converted to a multi-move request at 04:28, 20 May 2020 the bot posted a redundant notification at 04:31, 20 May 2020 on Talk:Modlin
  • edit summary: Notifying of move discussion on Talk:Modlin (Nowy Dwór Mazowiecki)

---

• At 13:46, 25 May 2020 Modlin (Nowy Dwór Mazowiecki) moved to Modlin, Nowy Dwór Mazowiecki County
• At 13:46, 25 May 2020 the bot posted notice of a discussion on Talk:She's So High (Tal Bachman song)
• At 13:48, 25 May 2020, reported as a malformed request
  • Talk:Modlin (Nowy Dwór Mazowiecki)
  • Talk:She's So High (Tal Bachman song) – Conflicting discussion found! Modlin (Nowy Dwór Mazowiecki)
  • Talk:She's So High (Tal Bachman song) – Conflicting discussion found! Modlin
• At 13:58, 25 May 2020 a multi-move was belatedly closed

There are two or three issues here. The first, which happened on 20 May, is the same issue as reported at #John Brown (abolitionist). – wbm1058 (talk) 19:11, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

New Corella

This problem has been popping up frequently recently. I'm not sure why but likely a side effect of more recent code refactoring. Adding a second pass to catch redundant requests made on different pages has lengthened the delay from when the transcluded requests are captured to the time they are processed. Also, as I mentioned here, very large multimove requests such as this one can cause significant delays. Longer delays means larger windows for edit conflicts to happen. Edit conflicts have always happened but this previously infrequent problem has now become a common occurrance. I've caught one in action and am posting my findings here for the record as I walk through the processing sequence.

• Bot processing begins at 2020-06-13 02:00:17
• {{Requested move/dated}} is found on Talk:New Corella, Davao del Norte at about 02:00
• Bot retrieves Talk:New Corella, Davao del Norte contents at about 02:00 or 02:01 (on its first pass through the requests)
• At 02:02, a page-mover moved page New Corella, Davao del Norte to New Corella and Talk:New Corella, Davao del Norte to Talk:New Corella
• At 02:02 or 02:03, the bot reads this version of New Corella, Davao del Norte and should find that it is a self-redirect as the result of a page-mover's page swap but doesn't check for that –

  it just notes that it's a redirect that does not redirect to the requested name (New Corella)

• At 02:03, the bot notified Talk:New Corella of the move discussion on Talk:New Corella, Davao del Norte based on where the pages were before 02:02 (on its second pass through the requests)
  • edit summary: Notifying talk page of move discussion on Talk:New Corella, Davao del Norte
• At 02:03, the page-mover retargets New Corella, Davao del Norte from New Corella, Davao del Norte to New Corella
• At 02:07, the bot reports this as a malformed request:
  • Talk:New Corella, Davao del Norte – New Corella, Davao del Norte redirects to New Corella, Davao del Norte
  • But the RM is still otherwise listed normally, as if it hasn't been moved or closed yet (its status during the first pass)
  • Except that in this diff {{no redirect|New Corella}} changed to [[New Corella]]

    Right, that's just because of this recent code change to stop exceeding the expensive parser function limit. Since after the page-mover swap it's not a redirect anymore so {{no redirect|New Corella}}, an expensive function, isn't needed

The second-pass console report:

__________
82 Processing Talk:New Corella, Davao del Norte (:New Corella, Davao del Norte) contents...
Description: No other place, person or event that carry the same name. Refer to [[Talk:Talaingod, Davao del Norte|Talaingod]],  [[Talk:Cagdianao|Cagdianao]] and [[Talk:Capas|Capas]] for similar discussion. --[[User:Exec8|Exec8]] ([[User talk:Exec8|talk]]) 01:17, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Timestamp: 1591406220 - 01:17, 6 June 2020 (UTC); Original timestamp: 1591406220 - 01:17, 6 June 2020 (UTC) Delay passed?: true
Section> Requested move 6 June 2020 
Current name: 0: :New Corella, Davao del Norte
GET: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?action=query&format=json&prop=revisions&rvslots=main&titles=%3ANew+Corella%2C+Davao+del+Norte&rvlimit=1&rvprop=content|timestamp (0.11700701713562 s) (432 b)

*** PAGE :New Corella, Davao del Norte IS A REDIRECT!! ***
#REDIRECT [[New Corella, Davao del Norte]]

Target: New Corella, Davao del Norte
GET: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?action=query&format=json&prop=revisions&rvslots=main&titles=Talk%3ANew+Corella&rvlimit=1&rvprop=content|timestamp (0.091005086898804 s) (2126 b)
New name: 0: New Corella (Talk:New Corella has non-redirecting content) GET: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?action=query&format=json&prop=revisions&rvslots=main&titles=New+Corella&rvlimit=1&rvprop=content|timestamp (0.092005014419556 s) (11258 b)
Target-page New Corella has non-redirecting content
New Corella is not requested for move
*** Post crosspost notice to Talk:New Corella ***
GET: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?action=query&meta=tokens&format=json (0.083004951477051 s) (99 b)
POST: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?action=edit&format=json (1.0500600337982 s) (180 b)
__________

 Working – wbm1058 (talk) 14:39, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

v 7.36 went live yesterday; that should fix this but I didn't test it. Watch for a live-test which should add a line to Wikipedia:Requested moves/Current discussions for the malformed request: "[pagename] self-redirects. May be in process of moving or closing." While monitoring for a confirming use case, I just found two different scenarios which I added as separate sections below. Oh my. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:40, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

8′46″

This represents a different variant of the issue. In this case the talk page was temporarily out of sync with the article. Unfortunately I didn't capture the console report before it was overwritten.

• At 15:42, a closed RM was reopened after having been moved from 8′46″ to 8 minutes and 46 seconds (via another page, an unnecessary detail)
• At 15:44, Fuzheado moved page 8 minutes and 46 seconds to 8′46″: improper SNOW CLOSE, no consensus, and early close - undoing move until proper procedure followed
• At 15:45, bot processing begins
• At 15:53, the bot reports this as a malformed request
  • Talk:8 minutes and 46 seconds – 8 minutes and 46 seconds redirects to 8′46″
• At 16:00, bot processing begins
• At 16:03, Fuzheado moved page Talk:8 minutes and 46 seconds to Talk:8′46″ (undoing improper move)
• At 16:08, the bot notified Talk:8′46″ of the move discussion on Talk:8 minutes and 46 seconds based on where the pages were before 16:03
  • edit summary: Notifying target talkpage of move discussion on Talk:8 minutes and 46 seconds

 Working – wbm1058 (talk) 01:58, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

This is a timing issue that I'm not sure I reproduced in testing, but I think other patches I've put in place including v 7.37 should catch it depending on the timing. So I'm taking this off my to-do list until another instance of the problem is noticed, at least. – wbm1058 (talk) 01:40, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

John Brown (abolitionist)

John Brown (abolitionist) was listed as a possibly incomplete request:

• Talk:John Brown (abolitionist) – John Brown (abolitionist) is requested for move to John Brown, which has non-redirecting content and is not requested for move

After the RM was converted to a multi-move request at 11:53, 14 June 2020, the bot posted a redundant notification at 12:01, 14 June 2020 on Talk:John Brown

• edit summary: Notifying of multimove discussion on Talk:John Brown (abolitionist)

The original move notice was lacking the template

{{User:RMCD bot/multimove|1=John Brown (disambiguation)|2=Talk:John Brown (abolitionist)#Requested move 13 June 2020 }}

because originally it wasn't a multi-move. Upon conversion to multi-move the template should just be added to the original notice.  Working – wbm1058 (talk) 15:38, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

 Fixed by bot v 7.40 – wbm1058 (talk) 17:34, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Leader of the Opposition in Wales

This one is similar to #New Corella, but the page was moved conventionally rather than page-mover swapped.

• At 11:15, bot processing begins
• At 11:22 / 11:23 RM closed
• At 11:23, 13 June 2020‎ Llemiles moved page Talk:Leader of the Opposition in the Senedd to Talk:Leader of the Opposition in Wales: As per consensus at Talk:Leader_of_the_Opposition_in_the_Senedd
• At 11:23, 13 June 2020, the bot notified Talk:Leader of the Opposition in Wales of the move discussion on Talk:Leader of the Opposition in the Senedd based on where the pages were before 11:23
  • edit summary: Notifying talk page of move discussion on Talk:Leader of the Opposition in the Senedd
• At 11:23, 13 June 2020, the bot reports this as both Malformed and possibly incomplete
  • Talk:Leader of the Opposition in the Senedd – Leader of the Opposition in the Senedd redirects to requested name: Leader of the Opposition in Wales
  • Talk:Leader of the Opposition in the Senedd – Leader of the Opposition in the Senedd is requested for move to Leader of the Opposition in Wales, which has non-redirecting content and is not requested for move

 Working – wbm1058 (talk) 19:31, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

v 7.38 addresses this... now when this happens notifications are skipped and this won't be reported as a "possibly incomplete" request. Really, notifications should be skipped any time the bot sees what it thinks is a malformed request. "Redirects to requested name" is still reported as a "soft error": "May be in process of closing." This is not a problem needing attention if it's an edit conflict, but if hours pass after the page moved and the RM still hasn't been closed then it is a problem needing attention. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:50, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Why did the bot do this?

Why did this bot do this?VR _talk 19:08, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Edit conflict with bot's processing. The bot would have reverted itself on the next run as it automatically removes these templates after an RM is closed. In this case, the RM was still open when the bot passed by the page. This issue should be addressed by my next bot coding task. – wbm1058 (talk) 00:51, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Ok thanks. I see that now[5].VR _talk 13:28, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

• The bot did it again.VR _talk 09:05, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

  I've started laying some groundwork to fix this issue. – wbm1058 (talk) 20:29, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

mw:API:Edit has parameters that are used to detect edit conflicts. My bot framework has a rudimentary option to use these but I think my algorithm is too complicated to use that as designed. Anyhow that may be an option for solving this particular issue, versus trawling through edit histories. Just also noting that I named that template User:RMCD bot/subject notice as an attempt to communicate to editors, "this template is property of the bot, which will take responsibility for its proper usage, including removal when appropriate." The issue is the bot doesn't work in real time, and thus there can be a lag of up to 15–20 minutes or more from when the RM is closed to when the bot removes that template. – wbm1058 (talk) 23:29, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

OK, so detecting edit conflicts or reversions of bot edits requires still unimplemented changes in my bot's framework. In lieu of that, I have  Fixed this specific issue with version 7.67 which won't post notifications more than one week after the RM was listed. That addresses the issues linked above. There is still a chance for this issue to repeat if an RM is speedily closed, but that should happen about as often as it snows in mid-summer. – wbm1058 (talk) 01:09, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Indication of move protection settings

Is it possible to add an indication of page move protection settings of the pages involved in move discussion? Basically, there have been some cases where I go to a RM & realise it's template protected (could even be sysop protected). Maybe, we should add an indication of this in the elapsed/backlog requests list, so that everyone knows what rights are required for closing the move. Sysops would know that this particular RM requires their intervention, etc. An underline on page name, like it is under Discuss seems appropriate. A section noting the significance/meaning of these underlines at WP:RM would help everyone know what they stand for. Thanks! ---CX Zoom(^he/_him) (^{let's talk}|_contribs) 12:50, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

The technology exists: {{PROTECTIONLEVEL:move|Elton John}} → sysop; {{PROTECTIONLEVEL:move|Template:Pp-template}} → templateeditor. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:47, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the bot would obtain it via mw:API:Info. But this idea raised another idea in my mind, which is to flag requested move targets that have page histories that prevent page-movers from moving directly over the redirect. I find unnecessary round-robin moves to be annoying as they add confusion to the page-move histories. I envision preemptive deletions of page-move-blocking edits, while the RM is open, to enable RM-closing page movers to move directly over the redirect. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:18, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Interesting take on the round-robin technique. Your suggestion to make it possible for page movers to be able to move over multiple-edit redirects is admirable and I hope it comes to pass. I remember reading that when a redirect's page history is substantial, then even admins should use the round-robin to preserve the page history. I have been using a different technique when the page history is not substantial, which is simply to move the redirect to a new, plausible title without leaving a redirect behind. So the old redirect is deleted much the same way an admin would do it, except that there is a new redirect created. One tricky part for page movers would be weighing how substantial the redirect's page history is. Novice page movers might want to avoid this procedure until they are experienced enough to measure what is and isn't a substantial page history. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 09:09, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

A new template {{RM protected}} was created on 14 September 2023‎ by SilverLocust. Example transclusion here. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:38, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I have drafted some potential changes to Module:Requested move and {{requested move/dated}}, so that {{subst:RM}} will check each current/proposed title for admin/template-editor protection and add an icon to the /dated template with |protected=. See Template talk:Requested move#Detecting and showing page protection for more info and sandbox links.

I did a couple small tests to see if it would cause any issue with RMCD bot by adding |protected=yes to an existing RM of mine and to a sandbox RM. The former is still listed as usual, and the latter was listed as usual (for the 15 minutes before it was removed at the next bot cycle). SilverLocust 💬 20:45, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Requesting edits to protected pages

Hi there! I'd like to request that when the bot has insufficient perms to edit certain pages to add the banner, it adds an an edit request to the talk page. An example of this happening is here. Thanks! 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 21:42, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Wbm1058, just following up :) — Frostly (talk) 22:00, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

This is lower priority because it's not a frequently-occurring problem. My bot tells me (in its console report, when I check in on that) when it hasn't posted a notice somewhere. I don't see that very often. – wbm1058 (talk) 23:10, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Humans editing Wikipedia:Requested moves/Current discussions

Hello

Moved from User talk:wbm1058

@Wbm1058:, Muhammad Ayub Khan should be renamed as Ayub Khan (President of Pakistan). I had requested about it in Wikipedia:Requested moves but it was reverted, see here. Hamwal (talk) 14:05, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

@Hamwal: You didn't follow the move request process, specifically the WP:PCM section. Please read it and make your move proposal correctly. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:12, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I suppose I could enhance the bot to look at the edit history of Wikipedia:Requested moves/Current discussions, and make it post a notice on the talk page of any editor who happened to be the last editor to edit that subpage, basically telling that editor the same thing that UtherSRG did. On 15 December 2023, I added a new function recent_page_edits to botclasses.php – this function hasn't been tested in production code yet, though. I should write another, related function that gets the user ID of the most recent editor of a specified page, for this purpose. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:05, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/Archive 35#Template-protect Wikipedia:Requested moves/Current discussions. That died with some opposition but I maintain we should make this misuse impossible not build increasingly elaborate footguns and bullet trackers. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:57, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Hmm. Noting that since Wikipedia:Good article nominations was template-protected on 11 November 2023, there has only been one non-bot edit to that page, by an administrator who apparently knew what they were doing, since their change was not reverted by the bot's next edit. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:42, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

That archived discussion points out that not all edits to the bot's page are misuse.

• Here an editor who is not a template editor jumped in a minute after the bot's last edit to correct their requested move target. They just wanted to get a jump on the bot, which would have made the same change, albeit about 15 minutes later.
• The bot did not edit its page after 13:34, 5 December 2023, until 18:19, 5 December 2023. Hmm, that's when the Twin Towers were under attack. What was I doing? Just regular maintenance tasks, or distracted by the "Rainbow Bridge bombing". Was I not aware of this until a day later (18:23, 6 December 2023)? I guess so, I ended the war about half an hour after someone finally alerted me about the problem.

On my to-do list: finding solutions that don't shoot editors in the foot. – wbm1058 (talk) 13:58, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, the page should rarely (if ever) be edited by non-bots. The only edit I have made to the page eight and a half years ago, for example, was immediately reverted by the bot in the next edit. This change replaced the #ifeq with noinclude and includeonly, and I did not ask the bot to do this until about a year later (archived at User talk:RMCD bot/Archive 1#Noinclude and includeonly tags).

Below are possible solutions with the pros and cons:

Possible solutions

Solution	Pros	Cons
Template-protect WP:RMCD	Reduces the number of non-bots who could edit the page.	Page could still be edited by template editors. Page is not widely transcluded (only transcluded at WP:RM).
Fully-protect WP:RMCD	Reduces the number of non-bots who could edit the page even more than template-protecting would.	Page could still be edited by administrators. RMCD bot would need to be made an adminbot.
Create a new protection level called "bot-protection" to be applied to WP:RMCD.	Makes edits by non-bots impossible.	Page could not be manually edited in the event that the bot is down. Creating new protection levels would likely be controversial.

GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 15:51, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I think that full protection is likely appropriate. — Frostly (talk) 22:05, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Description issue

Pinging @RMCD bot, Wbm1058, Qwerfjkl: I sought a unusual description related to retitling articles for the I Can See Your Voice franchise dated March 31, 2024 (also main discussion); maybe the RMCD bot (operated by Wbm1058) did actually that fault, please resolve this "mistaken typo". Thank you for our concern. Saisønisse (talk) 02:32, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

@Saisønisse: hopefully I've fixed it to your satisfaction. You should always use {{subst:requested move}}, following the instructions given in that template's documentation or at WP:RM#CM, to request potentially controversial moves; the purpose of that template is to pre-process requests so that you don't encounter the sort of issues you did, which often require me to intervene to fix. My time is over-subscribed. – wbm1058 (talk) 20:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Bot edit warring with itself at Talk:List of political parties in Austria

* Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:54, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting.  Fixed to not edit war by bot v 8.51

The underlying problem was a commented-out template. I had to make ONE, TWO edits to resolve the underlying problem. I've not attempted to make the bot's regex smart enough to ignore commented-out templates or partial-template syntax, so this issue could recur in the future, albeit without the internal edit warring. The problem will be reported in my bot's console, and if I notice that, I can fix it in a similar manner. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:45, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

False removal of notice

Here. The request is still open? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:21, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

The request was closed, at which point the bot correctly removed the banner, but then the RM was reopened. I have restored the banner. SilverLocust 💬 10:50, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

@Wbm1058: After too noticing the bot doesn't restore the banner on a reopened RM (Privately made firearm), I was just wondering if this is something we've always had to restore manually? Hyphenation Expert (talk) 19:47, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

This question came up about a month ago. special:diff/1055445744. #Why did the bot do this? The short answer is that I installed a quick & dirty patch to prevent the bot from "falsely adding notices" after a week, when there is the possibility of editing conflicts with closing administrators. – wbm1058 (talk) 20:42, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Bot posting multimove requests on Current Discussions with order reversed

I guess the best way to show this issue is comparing this edit with Talk:Ashley Park (actress)#Requested move 2 June 2024. The bot has been posting the 2+ page to be moved as the first and the first not as the first on the Current Discussions page. Steel1943 (talk) 21:41, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

@Steel1943: that's intentional. You can't first move Ashley Park (actress) → Ashley Park, overwriting the article about the residential neighbourhood, because that makes the second move, Ashley Park → Ashley Park, Surrey, impossible. The moves must be performed in the order specified on the bot's page. It's been annoyance to me to see these out-of-order requests. – wbm1058 (talk) 23:53, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Understandable, but ... it can be confusing to readers since, in most cases, the nomination statement will be about a primary topic claim and why the proposed article should move to the base name, but then the move listed before their nomination statement is either moving the current primary topic away from the title or moving the respective disambiguation page. Move discussion closers can figure out the correct order of moves themselves when closing the discussion, since ... honestly, they should anyways if they are moving pages. Steel1943 (talk) 16:10, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Bot stuck/not running for requested moves?

(Apologies if there's a better place for this question. Feel free to move/etc.) But it seems like the bot hasn't updated Wikipedia:Requested moves/Current discussions in over a day (most recent rev I see is from 13:09, 15 July 2024‎). There's both been closures, I'm sure, but also new RMs on 16 July which is absent rom the current discussions, such as Talk:Libyan Crisis (2011–present)#Requested move 16 July 2024 (and others). Skynxnex (talk) 14:02, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

The bot still seems stuck. Are there any admins of it able to poke it awake again?

This is otherwise going to cause a backlog of RMs that may not get the eyes the should. Raladic (talk) 23:05, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Pinging bot operator: @Wbm1058 for this.

I am updating the the current discussion pages in a semi-autonomous manner using the bot's script. It should suffice for now until Wbm1058 returns in a couple of days (hopefully). – robertsky (talk) 00:40, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

@Raladic and @Skynxnex: FYI, I have tasked my bot User:The Sky Bot to run the same script as a stand-in while RMCD bot is down. – robertsky (talk) 03:44, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for filling in while I'm on the road. I never did get around yet to making this run on the Toolforge. – wbm1058 (talk) 21:48, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

No problem. Let me know when you are ready take over. Additionally, I have just figured out the settings for Toolforge to have it scheduled. If you want, I can guide/help you to set it up. – robertsky (talk) 11:52, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

it seems like a new bot called sky bot has replaced rmcd bot 173.72.3.91 (talk) 17:26, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

@Wbm1058, I didn't notice that you are back until now. I have just deactivated the tasks that it was standing in for. – robertsky (talk) 02:47, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks again for filling in. I wanted to let the bots run in parallel for a little while to see whether any issues with edit conflicts cropped up. I do have some of my bots set up to run on the Toolforge. Unfortuanately both of my permalink bots (on my desktop and on the Toolforge) stopped working while I was away. – wbm1058 (talk) 03:00, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

After I took over the tasks, I realised that there was the potential for repeated messages, so I modified a couple of lines in your code to ensure that there's no repeat of messages from my bot if yours had posted first on the talk page. There shouldn't be edit conflicts on the article pages and the notice pages given that the content should be roughly the same. – robertsky (talk) 04:02, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

@Robertsky: can you post your modifications to User:RMCD bot/requestedmoves.php? Thanks, wbm1058 (talk) 11:08, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Incorrect Action to Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP Sunnis)

Redirecting the title change discussion on this page to another page is an incorrect action. A discussion that started a week ago and moved to another page without closing it ~~ Spworld2 (talk) 03:51, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, my bot complained about that! wbm1058 (talk) 13:24, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Exclude /sandbox

It might not be appropriate to remove {{Title notice/sandbox}} ({{Requested move notice/sandbox}}) as the bot did in [6]. 142.113.140.146 (talk) 13:37, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

No, it was appropriate for my bot to remove the notice placed at the top of Template talk:Requested move notice, out-of-process. A requested change to that page's title is not under discussion. – wbm1058 (talk) 18:46, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama

The removal discussion(RMCD) decision on this page is incorrect. Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (Samastha) is an organization formed in 1926 in the Indian state of Kerala[7]. AP Aboobacker, who was in the leadership in 1986, some leaders separated from this organization in 1986 and formed a new organization(Samastha (AP Faction)). The name of that organization is Samastha (AP Faction). In the name of this Samastha (AP Faction) there is an article in which the editing editor(User:Neutralhappy) has removed many parts of the Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama, added incorrect information, suppressed information from this Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama in the new Samastha (AP Faction) and changed unnecessary headings.

There is no need to move this request on this page, it is the same as the original name Spworld2 (talk) 10:46, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

@Spworld2 I think you got confused. The discussion is not about a 'removal' of I don't know what you are thinking of. The discussion should not be unceremoniously removed as you had done. You can leave a comment on it though. – robertsky (talk) 06:31, 23 August 2024 (UTC)