Hello. I am not sure who is currently maintaining the bot, and who to ask this question/request (as you have been inactive here since 2 years).
Currently, I have a task to send out notifications for Teahouse thread/discussion archival (User:KiranBOT/Teahouse notification). For that task, it is crucial that Lowercase sigmabot III mentions the total number of discussions that were archived. For example, in this edit the bot archived 86 discussions in total, out of which 31 to "Archive 1246", and rest were to 1245. The edit summary says "Archiving 31 discussion(s) to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1246, Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1245". My request is, would it be possible to add the total number of archived discussions to the edit summary? ie, "Archiving 86 discussion(s) to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1246, Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1245", if it is a lot complicated, then would following summary be possible "Archiving 31 discussion(s) to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1246, Archiving 55 discussion(s) Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1245"? —usernamekiran (talk) 15:25, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

pinging @Enterprisey, The Earwig, and 0xDeadbeef: —usernamekiran (talk) 15:30, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I update the code at User:Usernamekiran/Lowercase sigmabot III/Source.py. I have not tested it, but I think it would need some minor testing/fixing. Would you guys kindly do it? —usernamekiran (talk) 05:12, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think your solution with the yields will work correctly as you've written it. But either with your approach or a different one, this shouldn't be too difficult to fix. I'm swamped with personal things at the moment, but I've made a note to come back to this in a couple weeks if no one else takes a look. — The Earwig (talk) 00:27, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

oh. I was hoping it would work, or at least make it easier to find the actual solution. Thanks for the response, and for the help, it is appreciated a lot. —usernamekiran (talk) 15:33, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a read with the original source code, and I am confused as to why the bot counts 31 in that case. It is supposed to count the number of sections it has removed, which should be correct. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 09:51, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sig- I got this error when trying to search Commons. I tried "Commons", "commons.wikimedia.org", and "Wikimedia Commons"; all got errors. Thanks in advance for any info. Eric ^talk 16:05, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Eric: It should be "commonswiki". 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 02:19, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Eric ^talk 02:52, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Σ hope you doing well, actually I'm facing some issue with the bot on my talk page from some months. Firstly it created 1 archive page per talk page topic later it stopped working for my talk page from 3 months. A help will be appreciated I will be thankful to you. ZDRX _{(User) | (Contact)} 07:52, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) @ZDRX: To the first issue, this is because you set |maxarchivesize=20 - 20 bytes is extremely small, very few talk page threads will not exceed that size - and indeed every thread that is archivable will be at least 30 bytes, being a single-character heading plus a signature. To the second issue - you have set |minthreadstoarchive=10 but there are fewer than ten threads on the page at present. The bot is working as designed. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:48, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Two issues at Talk:Donald Trump:

• Bot hasn't dropped by since 29 March.
• Nothing to archive, you say? Two days ago, admin Valereee identified five threads[1][2] that should have been auto-archived on 21 March, 22 March, 25 March, 26 March, 27 March, and 29 March. Well... not all of them as early as 21 March, but certainly all of them by 29 March. Archive age is 7 days. Those threads have now been manually archived.

I created a test thread with a fake date at Talk:Donald Trump#Archive bot test thread. Now if we can just get the bot to visit. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 08:49, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Come to think of it, the bot could be visiting and not finding anything to archive (despite that it should do). That would be indistinguishable from not visiting, since it doesn't leave a "note" (dummy edit) when it does that. So we could be looking at one issue, not two. Does it log visits somewhere, including "nothing found" visits? ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 10:30, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The user hasn't edited in nearly three years...maybe just switch to another bot? Valereee (talk) 10:35, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redrose64 commented above just two days ago. If anybody can figure this out, she can. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 10:39, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The bot must have heard me talking about it. It just came by and archived two threads including my test thread. I guess call it a mystery transient until further notice (unless Redrose64 has any ideas). ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 13:48, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mandruss: Yes, I've been monitoring this page for some years. Usually, problems posted here aren't really problems at all, but a misunderstanding of how the bot operates. The first thing to do is to check the parameters of the {{User:MiszaBot/config}} - most importantly, |algo=old(7d) means 7 days (168 hours) since the latest timestamp within a thread. At the time that Mandruss first raised this thread (08:31, 2 April 2025 (UTC)), any thread containing a timestamp of 08:31, 26 March 2025 (UTC) or later was not eligible for archiving. Also not eligible for archiving are any threads that totally lack a valid timestamp. See the list below: of the 47 threads in the page at that time, only two were eligible for archiving - these were no. 10 "Allegations of narcissistic personality disorder" and no. 47 "Archive bot test thread". It is entirely likely that in the 15 hours 17 minutes between 17:14, 1 April 2025 (UTC) (when no. 10 became eligible) and 08:31, 2 April 2025 (UTC) (when Mandruss posted here), Lowercase sigmabot III simply hadn't had a chance to get to Talk:Donald Trump. Consider: it does have an awful lot of article talk pages to work through, and cannot visit every one of them every day, and even if it could, it is not going to archive threads the instant that they become eligible; several hours might elapse, and this is perfectly normal. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:13, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Redrose. Valereee (talk) 21:16, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Redrose64: Thanks. How about we isolate one simple case. Here are four of the five threads that had to be manually archived because the bot missed them. The third of the four, "Renaming Second Trump tariffs", had only one date: 10 March 2025. So it was eligible for auto-archival on 17-18 March, and should have been auto-archived in the 21 March run. Failing that, the 22nd, 25th, 26th, 27th, or 29th. The bot just refused to archive that one. Why? ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 21:47, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering about two entirely unrelated things that might be a factor. First, the history of Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 194 (the relevant archive for the period) shows a large amount of non-bot archiving, either manual cut-and-paste, or by using the User:Elli/OneClickArchiver script. In the past, I have known bot archiving on other pages to be disrupted by such actions. Second - and probably more likely - the only signature in the thread concerned is not in the normal format, the links to user page and user talk page are unspaced, instead having a Unicode U+2748 character between them, which might be confusing the bot. For this reason, the little red rose in my own sig is in the form of a numeric character reference, and also spaced away from the links. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:36, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If a sig confuses the bot, it's an invalid sig. Somebody with some authority/power/teeth should tell them to fix it and make sure they do. Somebody like, say, you. :)

But does that explanation account for the other three in that group? ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 13:09, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For "Trump comments on Unite the Right rally, Charlottesville, VA, Aug 11–12, 2017", the latest timestamp was 13:50, 20 March 2025 (UTC) so it wouldn't be eligible for archiving until 13:50, 27 March 2025 (UTC). Another thing that comes to mind is the size of the page - it's presently under scrutiny at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Unusual slowdowns at Talk:Donald Trump. Which you knew already, but there may be a connection. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:02, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't respond about the invalid sig, which concerns me greatly. A lone user should not be permitted to break critical infrastructure. None of us has the time to constantly monitor auto-archiving to make sure it's working correctly, scanning long threads to determine the latest dates. There's no reason that editor would listen to a peon like me. Based on my experience, there's a very good chance they would look at my "Is administrator? X" and wish me a nice day.

so it wouldn't be eligible for archiving until 13:50, 27 March 2025 (UTC). Ok, so if the timing wasn't quite right for the bot run on the 27th (my time), it should have been archived in the run on the 29th. It wasn't. Explain please. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 14:41, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't treat me as if I am the person who maintains the bot. I'm not. I'm merely a passer-by who fields the occasional question in the continued absence of Σ (talk · contribs). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:27, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not expecting you to fix the bot, even if it needs fixing; I fully understand that the bot is, sadly, currently unmaintainable. Just trying to understand the situation, and you're the one with the technical knowledge about such things. Auto-archival was working fine for years (concurrent with heavy use of OneClickArchiver), then suddenly it wasn't; I need to know why. But "I don't know <shrug>" is a response I would accept. I don't expect anybody to know everything, even you. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 10:06, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don't assume there's no reason that editor would listen to a peon like me. We expect well-intentioned editors to listen to well-intentioned editors, especially ones who are more experienced. Status as an admin by someone reaching out to an editor with a concern isn't something the community considers when assessing response to those concerns. Explain your concern to the editor. If they don't listen, ping me. Valereee (talk) 18:40, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I shall give it a try, and one of us is likely to learn something. Redrose64, please clarify exactly what needs to be done to the sig. Are you saying it just needs spaces before and after the "sparkle" character? ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 04:28, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, since we're just guessing at this point, I think we should be certain before I approach that editor. I would like to open two test threads at Talk:Donald Trump, one with the fix and one without it. Then see what happens on the next bot run. Would it be acceptable for me to forge the other user's sig in this manner if I make it clear what I'm doing in the content of the threads? ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 04:46, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]