User talk:PhuzBot

This bot has removed the | jr/sr = parameter used with Template:Infobox officeholder from several articles. Can this bot be prevented from doing this in the future? Aneirinn (talk) 19:00, 3 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi, thanks for the heads up on the issue! I'll investigate and get back to you. In the meantime, I've paused all of my bot's activity on {{Infobox officeholder}} until this is figured out. phuzion (talk) 19:06, 3 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Aneirinn I have figured out and fixed the issue, there was a missing character in my regex. I've since gone and supervised the bot through all of the pages in the deprecated parameters category that have |jr/sr= as a parameter, and no further removals were done. If you spot any other articles where the bot removed this parameter, please feel free to revert them! Thank you for spotting the issue! phuzion (talk) 19:26, 3 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

If possible could you do this?

As you can see in Special:Diff/1380057553, for some reason the bot truncated a parameter with a line break, messing up the infobox in the process. While the line break was superflous, it was OK in terms of display. TBH, I'm not sure why the bot is even touching parameters that aren't deprecated when that's what the task is supposed to be about; and doing infobox whitespace addition and removal that doesn't look entirely consistent. I'm guessing this has something to do with genfixes being enabled, but I don't think they usually cause something like this. In any case, please look into this when you can. Gamapamani (talk) 17:15, 14 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the heads up, I'll take a look. phuzion (talk) 17:38, 14 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, thanks again for the heads up. I identified the issue, and have deployed a codefix. What was happening was part of the parameters cleanup code was getting caught on a stray newline inside a wikilink, and it thought it was an invalid parameter. Because of the way the code works, it actually reads all of the parameters, and effectively builds a brand new infobox from scratch. Since the invalid parameter didn't match anything, it was dropped. The code is now much more robust and won't make that particular mistake anymore. Thanks for letting me know! phuzion (talk) 18:19, 14 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

I saw this bizarre edit, and was surprised that it wasn't done by a vandal. Bearian (talk) 17:57, 22 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, thanks for the heads up! I looked into what happened here. It turns out an IP editor added the weird math formula almost 9 years ago. My bot simply moved it from the end of a category to what would have been an appropriate place for some text in the article. Thanks for cleaning that up! phuzion (talk) 00:18, 23 October 2026 (UTC)Reply