Wikipedia:Bots/Fulfilled requests/2022

From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bot873[change source]

  • Contributions
  • Operator: Operator873
  • Programming language: Pywikibot (Python)
  • Function: Archiver
  • Description: With the unfortunate events which concluded in the bot discussed below being no longer available, I will offer Bot873 in the interim. My intent is only to be a stopgap between now wherein we do not have a functioning archive bot and when Sassobot returns to work. The bot will be a Pywikibot using the archivebot script. I seek consent for the bot to do the following:
    1. Archive user talk pages where the {{User:MiszaBot/config}} has been placed and the {{bots}} template does not disallow bots or only allows Sassobot.
    2. Possess the capability to archive project/Wikipedia namespace pages as requested by the community. Consensus dictates the content of the {{bots}} template in this case. Currently most pages, like WP:ST, explicitly only allow Sassobot until acted on by the community.

The bot will share the Bot873 account with the Global Sysop bot on meta. However they are two fully separate bots that will not interact, do not share code, and will not operate interchangeably. This archiver bot will run under the Toolforge tool called bot873 and I'm quite open to having additional operators/maintainers as available.

--Operator873 connect 04:22, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Approved for trial (50 edits, and only with Pywikibot 7.6 or newer). Bot873 should respect all existing {{bots}} restrictions (across all namespaces) for the time being. --Chenzw  Talk  04:33, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To clarify, the bot should continue respecting {{bots}} restrictions during the trial. In terms of bypassing {{bots}} during a live run, I am not inclined to approve only (1) but not (2), as that seems to be a double standard. Why is it okay for the bot to ignore {{bots}} on user talk pages but not on project namespace? In my view, it should be an all or none matter, considering that the bot's function is identical. Chenzw  Talk  04:51, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think I might have worded that very badly. Bot873 will fully respect the {{bots}} template. I meant to say that it will not edit any pages that aren't specifically opted in. Operator873 connect 05:33, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Further painful clarification because I'm terrible at communication... Item #2 is not currently requested as something to be done by the bot. I just wanted to state from the outset that the bot has the capability to support the community in that role. After the trial stage, when the bot is approved to operate, it will only do work within user talk namespace where the user has {{bots}}, {{bots|allow=all}}, or {{bots|allow=Bot873}}. A page previously having allowed Sassobot with {{bots|allow=Sassobot}} will also be ignored. Operator873 connect 09:46, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Operator873: If it would be helpful, you may use User talk:Auntof6/Newsletters as needed for any testing in addition to the approved trial, including reverting any past archiving if you want. It contains only newsletter and tech news type things, no actual talk or conversation, so you can't really hurt anything. -- Auntof6 (talk) 05:22, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Auntof6: Thank you. I will be trialing the bot on testwiki first. Then a few users, like yourself, that allow the bot to operate within their user space. Then we'll look to what's next. Operator873 connect 05:34, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Operator873: Sounds good. Note that I'm volunteering only my newsletter pages at this time. -- Auntof6 (talk) 05:53, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Operator873, you are also free to use my user talk page as part of the trial --Ferien (talk) 22:31, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A series of tests were executed within my own user space and on User talk:Auntof6/Newsletters. I faced some initial challenges when I started out realizing the version of Pywikibot available on Toolforge is not the 7.6 prescribed. I was able to get the corrected by doing a git pull from the github repo. The bot's test are visible by reviewing its contribs. The tests included respect for variations of {{nobots}}, {{bots}}, and different archiving configs, including formats for Wikipedia namespaces. They all seem to be successful at this time. Please notify me if any strangeness is discovered. Operator873 connect 09:36, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A few more tests conducted with user permission on their talk pages today with apparently good results. 26 total edits of the 50 trial edits allotted. No additional trialing appears to be required at this time. After review, and independent verification, requesting approval. Operator873 connect 23:37, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looks good to me, and confirmed that pre-existing %(...)d format-strings are left as is on pages.  Approved., subjected to standard {{bots}} restrictions. Chenzw  Talk  00:41, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
First automated run for user talk space will happen tonight at 0500 UTC. Operator873 connect 01:22, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PDLBotArchiver[change source]

  • Contributions
  • Operator: PotsdamLamb
  • Programming language: Pywiki
  • Function: Auto-archiver
  • Description: Will be an automated archive bot since the archive bots no longer go too simple, and the only other one has to be run manually by a busy IRL user. This will prevent all the talk pages and boards from becoming too overbearing to follow. No editor changes will be required as it will still use the same configuration as the other archive bots. I am just copying over the same code. *I am in the process of setting it up, so the link above will be blue shortly.

--Da LambTalk to me!OMG, What have I done? 18:50, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@PotsdamLamb: You have created a user page for the bot without creating the user. Since user pages for non-existent users are subject to deletion, can you move the page to your user space for the time being? If a crat approves a trial, I think you can run the trial under your regular account, then create the bot account if it is approved. Thanks. -- Auntof6 (talk) 21:28, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Auntof6 PDLArchiverbot is a user page. PDLArchiverBot. These are two separate logins and the bot is running from toolforge instead of locally. Da LambTalk to me!OMG, What have I done? 21:38, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@PotsdamLamb: When I look at contributions, a message says that the account is not registered. I get the same whether I use the name with upper-case B or lower-case B. That makes it a user page for an unregistered user. Just creating a page with the User prefix doesn't mean that an account exists. -- Auntof6 (talk) 21:45, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just want to note that trials are usually run on the bot account. --Ferien (talk) 21:40, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ferien: Thanks. -- Auntof6 (talk) 21:43, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Auntof6@Ferien I am trying to figure out why it did not carry over as a user. I am looking into this, please do not remove the account. I was able to post as it and it allows me to login as PDLArchiverBot so I have to find out why it is not coming across. Da LambTalk to me!OMG, What have I done? 21:50, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ferien: I wasn't going to remove the account. I was just pointing out that the user page was subject to removal, to give you a chance to address that before someone tried to remove it. -- Auntof6 (talk) 21:55, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Auntof6@Ferien - It is now fixed, if you are ok with striking your comments that would be fine. I have to go back on tool forge and recreate it now. Da LambTalk to me!OMG, What have I done? 21:55, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Auntof6: To clarify for the record, I spoke with PL on IRC, and I realised he had mistakenly made a second userpage at the wrong name and used that (non-existent) username here too. I deleted the page and now the other account (which actually exists) will be used. --IWI (talk) 21:57, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
PotsdamLamb, I don't really have a comment to strike and Auntof6, I think you may have pinged me on mistake in the message above --Ferien (talk) 21:59, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ferien: Yes, I did: sorry for the wrong ping. I see no need to strike the comments just because the issues are resolved. They are a record of a discussion. -- Auntof6 (talk) 22:02, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment: - The BOT is now programmed, and I can authenticate it. I did one test on my own talk page. I have one kink to work out: it is not putting the archives into the right archive folder. For example, when it archived mine, it should have completed archive 3 and started putting them in Archive 4. Instead, it put them in archive 1. Da LambTalk to me!OMG, What have I done? 01:51, 22 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • One test was done on my TP to verify connection to simple and that it works before seeking approval.
  • I have provided a link in simple talk for consensus as required
  • I would request a speedy approval on this bot to get our boards and TPs back in order.
  • BOT is hosted on ToolForge
  • Emergency shut-off button is provided on the the BOTs main page.
  • Will run manually at first until approved, then it will run one time a day, with the other BOTs around 0:00 UTC depending on queue order.
  • @PotsdamLamb: If this bot gets approved, then when you are ready to start running it, can we please give people some notice that the change is coming -- what they will see and how it will affect them? I learned in my long data processing career that it's not good to spring things on people. Thanks. -- Auntof6 (talk) 21:49, 23 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yes most definitely. The only change they should notice is that the pages already set to archive, will start archiving, but I can get a message sent to everyone when we are close to deployment and approval and have it on everyone's TP as a mass message. Da LambTalk to me!OMG, What have I done? 21:52, 23 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @PotsdamLamb: Mass message sounds good, after approval is received. Also, maybe I misunderstood, but I thought it sounded like you would be changing the setup on talk pages -- people would want to know if someone was going to be changing their talk pages. -- Auntof6 (talk) 21:54, 23 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Auntof6 No so the only thing I would be changing is one variable from d to s, as d is no longer supported and will be completely removed in the next update, so I am doing this now so it doesn't break. Da LambTalk to me!Please don't eat da lamb! 22:08, 23 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Can you elaborate more on what the d to s change entails? Chenzw  Talk  15:07, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Auntof6@Ferien@Eptalon - I wanted to give everyone an update. I have filed a bug tracker for the issue but it got closed as my issue. Then the developer started getting the same messages and found the error within (builtin code) He is currently working on it.

    1. Short answer - The new version decided to no longer use %d for num and str and wants to phase it out, so using AWB I would be able to replace that variable to s.
    2. Long answer the new version that was committed on Friday, erased %d for accepting a num and str and made it %s. That caused quite a few issues with the running as it should. Xgt is on this fixing it and testing then I will run a test run again as it is the exact same setup as all the others, with the exception I am hosting it on toolforge and will run 1 time a day and automatically unless an admin hits the stop button. So right now, I am just watching the phabricator ticket for resolution and the email from the devs.

    Once they have that fixed, it should work like it always has. Da LambTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 17:22, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    BTW, the Phabricator task is a high-priority and is located here. You should be able to see it without logging in as it is set to public. Da LambTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 17:38, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @PotsdamLamb: When you refer to "the new version," what is this a new version of? -- Auntof6 (talk) 18:03, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Auntof6 It is the new version of PyWikibot. MW:Manual:Pywikibot. It is what is recommended over using AWB as it has a lot more flexibility. Like a lot of the stuff you do with AWB can be automated. Da LambTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 18:05, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @PotsdamLamb: About the things I do with AWB: a lot of it is automated in the sense that I set up AWB to make the changes I want. I'm not sure they should be automated in the sense of running unattended. In all but the simplest cases, I visually check the changes. For example, when I change "See also" and "External links" to "Related pages" and "Other websites", I also check for variations (you can see the regular expressions I use on my user page), and I often find that the headings needing change aren't used the way we'd expect. For example, I'd usually expect "Other websites" to be used for links outside of the current Wikipedia, but sometimes it's used where "Related pages" should be used. Some both local and external links are even combined in one section. I visually check the changes and make sure they're correct. I also make sure the sections are in the right order. If this were done without checking, we'd end up with incorrect headings.
    In short, the stuff I do -- changing article content -- is different from the kind of thing the talk page archiver does. The archiver moves whole sections from one page to another. The stuff I do is at a more detailed level. I'm not familiar with the automation you're talking about: can it do all that? -- Auntof6 (talk) 21:28, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Auntof6 So the pywikibot framework has a lot of smaller bots in it that are meant for specialized tasks. That is why I was asking. I am looking at a one time run for later that will handle that taxonbox|from= task I asked you about a while ago. Da LambTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 21:34, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Comment: @Auntof6 @Chenzw @Eptalon - Just to let you know a patch has been created and initial testing was successful. Waiting for approval and commit. Once I have it and it runs without issues, I should be able to test for pages and make sure it picks it up. I have it set to not edit so I can run it through the entire site with no changes, just for logging purposes to look for any other errors. Da LambTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 18:58, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Chenzw@Eptalon - It is now fixed and works with the variable of d so no AWB will be needed. I used my TP as a test and it archived all pages. I am ready for live testing. It is the main pywikibot code using the built in archiver using the MiszaBot/Config template so the only changes an editor should see is the fact threads got archived. Da LambTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 19:21, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the background. Noting for the record that the change to the %(...)s format string is necessary for localizations that don't use latin digits for date fields, but the patch in the script itself now changes %d to %s on the fly during runtime, so no modifications to existing on-wiki archive bot configuration is needed. Approved for trial (50 edits). Chenzw  Talk  04:05, 25 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Chenzw I am not sure how you would like me to do this. Auntof6 wanted me to send out a mass message about archiving kicking off. Did you want me to do a -simulation and screen shot it or how would you like me to do it? I don’t want to scare editors by thinking they lost all their talk page messages. I did my talk page already. Da LambTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 04:23, 25 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@PotsdamLamb: Yeah, this trial is a little tricky because the bulk of what would be getting archived is user talk pages. Normally trials don't involve user pages. You could pick some non-user talk pages, or you could ask for people to volunteer their user talk pages for the trial. You could also create sandbox pages to use and copy user talk contents into them. I wouldn't archive user talk pages without permission until the bot is approved and everyone knows it's coming. -- Auntof6 (talk) 05:36, 25 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Auntof6 It actually touched very few user pages. It goes alphabetical unless I feed it manually 50 different pages to edit, which no one does with their bot. The bot is acting like it should. With the edits to my space not counted it hit pretty much all the users who have the template. You stopped it at the letter 'T' so it was almost done with user pages and we do not have a lot of other pages that get archived. The simulation itself showed about 60 pages to be archived. There are others that could be archived but they have 2 or less threads on them and the spot check shows they are not active. Da LambTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 05:53, 25 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@PotsdamLamb: Do you feel you need to do any more testing? -- Auntof6 (talk) 06:06, 25 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Auntof6 Right now no. I need to wait on Chenzw and see what he says. Da LambTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 06:27, 25 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Archiving[change source]

I asked you not to archive user talk pages without permission. You were doing that, so I "tested" the stop button. Please acknowledge that you'll stop doing that and I'll unblock the bot. -- Auntof6 (talk) 05:40, 25 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Auntof6 - I have a Flag for 50 trial edits. Please see my BRFA, So I am not sure what you mean by saying I needed permission. My BRFA is approved for a 50 edit trial, and now that you blocked it. I have to stop the trial. To answer your other question you just posted I do not think we have 50 pages with the template on it. It was towards the end of the alphabet when you blocked it.
You have permission to run a trial of 50 edits, yes, but you don't have permission to edit other people's user talk pages without their OK. With a change like this, you need to plan for the testing. If there aren't 50 pages with the template, then maybe what is already done is enough. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:50, 25 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Since this is all related to the trial, I have moved this conversation over here as this is where it should be. All of the answers are above. My bot was authorized for 50 trial edits, it had not hit that when you blocked it. By having the template on their talk page for archiving, that in 'de facto' does give me their permission to archive it as the bot before mine, the bot before that, and an admins bot who all had the same permission. So for you to say I need to have explicit permission from each individual to archive their page is beyond anything I can say or even fathom. Did you also require DJSasso to have permission from each individual user to archive their pages? What about the other 2 editors who ran the bots before? I do not see that on their BRFAs at all. Again, we are back to you targeting me specifically, which we have discussed. If @Chenzw wanted limitations set on it, I am sure he would have said so since the approval has to come from him or another BC. I feel like you are blowing this way out of proportion from what it should have been. Anyways, @Chenzw, here are the contributions I was able to get done before the bot got blocked.
Thanks ~ Da LambTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 06:07, 25 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am not targeting you specifically. I am looking out for the other users here, who may not want a bot being tested on their talk pages. I know I didn't want it being tested on mine, at least not without the courtesy of being asked first (not notified, but asked). I don't remember Djsasso running a trial when he took over the function, but he took it over with no changes: I believe you were making changes. As for editors who ran the function before that, I wasn't around then so I can't speak to that.
I've unblocked the bot. Do what you want. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:15, 25 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No if you read above where I was approved, no changes needed to be made. I worked with the developers to get it fixed so it read the template correctly. If you read my post on talk it said nothing needed to be done on the user side. It has also gone under extensive testing already. If it wasn't I would not have gotten the flag to run a trial. I ran numerous simulations and it finally worked with no more errors. This was Chewnz comment: "Thanks for the background. Noting for the record that the change to the %(...)s format string is necessary for localizations that don't use latin digits for date fields, but the patch in the script itself now changes %d to %s on the fly during runtime, so no modifications to existing on-wiki archive bot configuration is needed" (emphasis is mine). You, like you have said to me many times, would rather it be tested before hitting the public. Had I not ran it through tests and simulations, then it would have caused issues, but luckily, the built in scripts will stop running and throw exceptions. Since it was interrupted I cannot continue the trial as it is set in the command when I run it to do no more than 50 so I have to wait for another approval for trial or a full on good to go. Thanks Da LambTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 06:22, 25 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, I should have been clearer in my earlier comment, since in hindsight that comment was geared more towards developers and a technical audience. As I understand it, the standard bot script for all archive bots (WMF-wide, including DJ's and mine that were deployed long ago) has been in the pywikibot framework. Between back then and now, the bot script changed such that existing on-wiki archive configuration needed to replace the old %(variable_name)d convention with %(variable_name)s instead. Now, if the deployment of this bot required such a change (d to s) to occur (i.e. you must perform the change before even running the bot), then a standard on-wiki announcement would be required, since this would be a backward-incompatible deployment.
Based on the patch linked from Phabricator, the author of the script made the on-wiki d to s change unnecessary because the bot will seamlessly re-interpret it while it is being run. To clarify, I approved the bot for trial because the patch eliminated the backward incompatibility concern I described above. However, there is an unintended side effect, it seems, because the bot will write the re-interpreted end result to the page as well (see diff) where the format string in the configuration template was changed from d to s. So from a BRFA perspective:
  • Must the bot actually rewrite %(...)d to %(...)s and save the rewritten format string to the on-wiki archive configuration, while it is processing the page?
  • (if yes) Please announce this a general advisory (bot will perform the change on the next archive cycle, change will be seamless... etc.) on a suitable community platform. ST is fine, in my view.
  • (if no) If there is no pressing reason to migrate the on-wiki existing archive configuration, the the bot should not do so, while still maintaining backward-compatibility. In this scenario this bot will be treated as a drop-in replacement for DJ's or mine, and no special announcement is needed.
  • (I am not fully familiar with the full history of the script, but I have the impression that changing the format string on-wiki from d to s will potentially break old versions of the archivebot).
...and an additional question from a technical perspective:
  • While I don't think anyone on this wiki has used the more unconventional format strings, what happens if the bot expects a %(...)s (as it is doing so now) but the configuration template defines an integer-specific format (like left-padded integers in en:User:Lowercase_sigmabot_III/Archive_HowTo#Variables)?
--Chenzw  Talk  10:19, 25 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Chenzw The variable can stay how it is within the configuration on each page. The script handles the conversion for the users so no need to have editors change it. The itself handles cosmetic changes (what you described in the last section about unconventional format strings). But to also give an update, Xqt stated he changed his mind and pulled his patch and instead put in an older patch. Once that is pushed (it may be already) I can pull it and test it again on simulation runs against what is left for testing then ask permission for 15-20 trial edits if I do not find any issues. Either way it will not require an announcement or seeking permission from each user. I would want to compose a mass message after deployment about how they can opt in to archives (link to how-to) and how to opt out if that would help. Thanks - Da LambTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 15:17, 25 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Chenzw The patch was merged (see Wikimedia Core Review for new patch and and merge status showing completed at 0832 this morning.). I do have it and tested it. No issues seen. It looks like their may not be many pages left when I did the simulation. May I have permission for another trial run please? Da LambTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 16:35, 25 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Chenzw @Auntof6 I did do a test run, with permission on User talk:Auntof6/Newsletters and it did indeed change the variable of 'd' to 's' I have sent a message to the developer to ask why this is happening? If it is set to have to be that way, provided you are using the shared repository or you do a clone git, you will get the which will do this for you as well. I will resume again when I get an answer and if I need to send out an announcement to let everyone know, I can do so. I will need to update all the documentation first to reflect the changes. AWB won't be needed to do this as the bot does it based on the script the developer used. Again, since this is a technical change and not some other change that would go against the guideline of not changing another users space, I will not need explicit permission to have the bot make that change and as stated last night, about a general announcement should suffice. But I am thinking to be on the safe side, is if we can get a mass message out to all named users about the upcoming change, based on the manual for pywikibot stating it is depreciated in this version and will be removed in their next major release so we might as well get ahead of it.
  • Updated tasks:
  1. Wait to hear back from developer on the issue with the changes
  2. Request another trial run
  3. If approved, start on the below:
  • Make changes on documentation where the variable 'd' is and change it to 's' - approximate time is about 10 minutes
  • Compose the mass message about the change that will be made automatically by the bot and to state it is for technical reasons. It will also link them to the documentation for setting it up and how to, as well as, how to not have it archived (by removing the template from their talk page, the no bot command, etc.) - approximate time is about 5 minutes (I have it typed up 1/2 way so far, just working on simplification)
  • Send out mass message - approximate time will be based on who can send it out and when it is queued for delivery.
  • Schedule the bot to start running the next night at midnight my time pacific time
Any issues with this tentative plan? Thanks - Da LambTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 22:29, 25 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This has become a bit more complicated now, because the latest patch explicitly states the %(...)d format string convention to be a valid one (lines 55 to 67). It is not acceptable for the bot to be modifying the on-wiki configuration from %d to %s. I believe the root cause for this behavior is at lines 598 to 600, where the bot internally performs a regex substitution to transparently account for non-latin digits. The issue is that this modified format string should not be saved back to the page on-wiki.
Until this has been clarified on the developer's side, please hold off on any announcement for the d to s change, because it will be a breaking (and potentially backward-incompatible) change. Chenzw  Talk  06:56, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Chenzw Correct. I did ask but have not gotten a response back from him. He had stated he pulled the patch he created and used an older one and I saw the commit to the master at 0845 this morning. What I’m thinking I can do is pull one prior to the latest update which was a week ago and just use the local install that would read it and not have any issues. It may be worth a shot if I don’t hear from him this week. Da LambTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 07:00, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Chenzw I opened a new bug report so it is separate from the first one. It is located here. Da LambTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 07:19, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Chenzw, @PotsdamLamb: Does this call for reverting changes made during the trial? Or at least finding pages where that character was changed and changing it back? I know that at least one of my users pages archived during the trial had that change made. -- Auntof6 (talk) 07:31, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Auntof6 at this point no because we do not have another bot running to do archives so there should be no issue. If Djsasso comes on and runs Sassobot he may run into an into an issue but I’m hoping for this to be resolved tomorrow. Da LambTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 07:34, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Auntof6 I added that as a comment to see if they can convert it back. If not I can do it with AWB. I have the query saved. Tomorrow I am gonna run AWB to see how many pages got changed that way. Da LambTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 07:40, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think it can (or even should) be converted back automatically by the script. Yes, please revert the %s format string changes by yourself (i.e. with your own account, AWB is fine). The %s and %d format strings mean differently in Python and are not simply aliases for each other. Also, when the new patch is available, I ask that you please link it here for me to take a look first before we proceed with any new trial. Chenzw  Talk  10:55, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Chenzw They are saying it was fixed in the previous patch. I’m going to reclone it and look at it and see if it’s still same. Da LambTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 14:40, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looks good, and noted on the explanation provided in T313785. Approved for trial (50 edits, and only with Pywikibot 7.6 or newer). Chenzw  Talk  17:17, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Chenzw Thank you. I am working on AWB to get it to change all of the variable s back to d first then I will run it and post. Da LambTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 17:20, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Chenzw I was able to get most, if not all of them back to d. Some may need to be changed manually because I as a person changed it, not the bot. I believe your TP is one of them. However, since it is recognizing it, I had no issues in archiving. I did successfully run the bot without any changes to the templates. The approved trial run of 50 edits was also completed. There were only 18 archives left to run the trial on and they were all successful. Here are the contributions . Thanks - Da LambTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 18:37, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Chenzw To let you know I did a git clone on the master this morning so I’m running a local and not the shared version so if the developers make any changes it won’t affect my bot or require anything on my end and won’t have any effect on pages with the Miszabot/config template. I figured this was the safest way to do this as they changed it numerous times today for other reasons outside the parameters and the non-Latin characters. Please let me know your thoughts on this and if you have any other questions. I know you were added to the main task that was branched off to numerous other branches. Da LambTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 04:58, 27 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The previous task list I created is null. No changes to the documentation need to be made, no on-wiki changes need to be made to any page, no messages need to be sent out (I did post on ST about archiving will start again when approved see Wikipedia:Simple_talk#Consensus_needed_for_archiving_bot on 21 July 2022). The only outstanding task will be to schedule it to run or run through more tasks or whatever I am directed by Chenzw to do at this point. Thanks - Da LambTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 00:41, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Approved. Noting for the record that this bot is a drop-in replacement for the archive bots that have previously been running on this wiki, and that this bot uses the same script as other archive bots. --Chenzw  Talk  05:30, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Chenzw Thank you so much. I appreciate it. Thanks - Da LambTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 05:41, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Chenzw I was notified by @Operator873 that I needed to gain community consensus to use this on the user talk pages and other discussion pages. So I am not going to schedule it to run right now. He also stated that I needed to obtain consensus to remove SassoBot from the pages in which he made exclusive to his bot by adding {{bots|allow=SassoBot}} to some pages. I cannot see which ones they are as I cannot use AWB to search for it (Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPageJSON#Need_AWB_again. I know it says we have to have consensus then we have an admin who said we didn't need it, and I interpreted Chenzw's comments as I am good to go, put it into play, no consensus is needed since it is a replacement drop-in for his and sassobot. So I am posting this to try to get an answer you both agree so I do not get in trouble, get banned or have the bot removed/ban. Thanks - Da LambTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 22:12, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is no functional difference between this bot and SassoBot (they even use the same script), so I don't think any community consensus is required. If, however, a user has used the {{bots}} template to only allow SassoBot, then a precautionary approach should be taken and the user contacted directly to advise them of the changes required for continued archiving work. I also think that there is no compelling reason to remove SassoBot from the existing {{bots}} template, if the template is transcluded on any pages. Chenzw  Talk  02:09, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Chenzw Do you see any reason why I could not add mine to the list as well? I had emailed Djsasso twice before I started heavily thinking of doing this and I got no reply. I’ve only seen the bot allow template on discussion pages not any user pages. Thanks - Da LambTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 02:34, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Since PotsdamLamb has pinged me, I guess hoping he can play me against other sysops or admin shop or whatever his intent is.... I'll say here, clearly and publicly, that I think the real issue is PotsdamLamb doesn't understand having his bot approved to operate on wiki does not grant carte blanche to 1-for-1 replace SassoBot every where Sassobot is or was mentioned or used, even if that was the original intent. I think PotsdamLamb's bot should be an option on the {{bots}} template, and should be an option for the community to opt in to using... but also I agree with what Chenzw said in that just because someone has allowed Sassobot via the bot template does not mean PotsdamLamb's bot can or should operate there. Yes, PotsdamLamb's bot may be a copy/paste of SassoBot or Pywikibot with no real code changes, but PotsdamLamb's bot is not SassoBot. Another way of saying this would be I couldn't add the same function to Bot873 and have it archive things just because Djsasso and PotsdamLamb have a bot that does the same thing. Operator873 connect 04:33, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Operator873 I am in no way pitting you guys together. You flat out told me in IRC that I have to have community consensus to run the bot on the wiki. We reviewed what was said together with what you said conflicted with what I was told. You said I cannot use it on public or user talk pages. I asked about the allowbots template and asked you if I was allowed to put my bot in there and you flat out said no without community consensus (this applied to both discussions and user pages). I understand user pages and I have no problem with that. I just needed to find all the pages where it was restricted so I have a list of users to contact with over 1 million users. That is why you were pinged because you told me something completely different than what you are now saying. You stated “ 14:39:36 <op873> having the apporved to operate on wiki is not the same as approval to archive simple talk and etc 14:39:42 <op873> start with user talk pages 14:39:49 <op873> demonstrate your bot won't eat the wiki 14:39:56 <op873> then start offering to do more 14:40:15 <op873> yes... your bot is a drop in replacement. NO that does not me it just magically replaces sassobot.” So to that effect that is the opposite of what I was told as I can do the public pages, but for users, I need their permission if they restricted the bots, otherwise, I do not need their permission. Per the post on my AWB request. Thanks - Da LambTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 04:54, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes. I'll point out that while it is considered very bad form to post logs from IRC on wiki without consent of the involved party(ies), I am still saying the same thing. Let's clarify....

  1. 14:39:36 <op873> having the apporved to operate on wiki is not the same as approval to archive simple talk and etc You need community consensus to operate a bot on this wiki. You requested that here. However, I still do not see in the bot description "I seek community permission to archive the WP:ST, WP:AN, (insert various other community pages here). I do however see you intending to archive talk pages of users.
  2. 14:39:42 <op873> start with user talk pages 14:39:49 <op873> demonstrate your bot won't eat the wiki 14:39:56 <op873> then start offering to do more I said you should not assume the bot approval here is cart blanche to replace SassoBot at will. You still need to obtain user consent. IOW, you can't replace sassobot on the {{bots}} template willy nilly.
  3. 14:40:15 <op873> yes... your bot is a drop in replacement. NO that does not me it just magically replaces sassobot. Yet again, you need user consent to alter their talk pages. And you need to explicitly state which community or policy pages you would like the community's permission to archive on their behalf.

Since you offered logs without my consent, I'm assuming you're ok with making our private conversation public. So I'll add some more:

  • 16:23:56 <op873> I do, however, see you being aggressive and unkind towards others on the project for not agreeing with you or falling into your line
  • 16:25:06 <op873> If you want to be pointy about it, I'll issue you a warning on wiki and we make it official and less friendly
  • 16:27:07 <op873> As a casual reminder, I don't need to ask you to be nice via PM. I'm trying to speak to you as a fellow editor with a concern about your behavior
  • 16:27:14 <op873> if you want me to put on my hat about it, I will.

We are all here to serve the community, not each other, and build a repository of free knowledge that is balanced by virtue of being built by people from all walks of life. We all serve here at the pleasure of the community. My point has been and continues to be that these kind of reactions do not serve anyone and your bot, while a copy of sassobot, does not enjoy any automatic approvals and you should not archive community pages without consent or user talk pages (excepting your own) without the responsible user opting in. Operator873 connect 05:26, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Operator873 To your first point it has already been addressed which is exactly why I pinged you. You just stated once again I cannot archive public pages without community consensus but Chenzw said (a few times in fact) “There is no functional difference between this bot and SassoBot (they even use the same script), so I don't think any community consensus is required.” The bot page states what it is supposed to do which is archive public and user talk pages. Just because it says that IT does not state it will archive all user pages. I have already stated in the beginning I would inform the user if their tp needs to be changed IF they want my bot to archive their page. This also applies to point 2, with the exception of public pages based on what was previously said where I can add my bot in the allow list by Chenzw. Your point 3 is a summary of 1 and 2. This is exactly why I wanted to get both of you together. You are both saying the opposite of each other. He says I only need the consent for any edits to the pages but not for archiving as is the norm. If I need consensus to do that, please point out the discussion and consensus for SassoBot to have this authority please? No one has yet provided that. So it is in no way pitting you guys against each other it’s because you are both telling me to do something different. As I stated earlier I removed the schedule from my bot so it won’t run until something is reached. Thanks - Da LambTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 05:42, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is perfectly acceptable and, in fact, preferable for two people to disagree on wiki. This happens frequently, as you may know, and why there is something called consensus which we follow here. So Chenzw and I can agree or disagree or whatever you feel like is happening and that's ok. A less involved sysop or crat can decide the consensus. I'm balancing work and wiki right now so my responses may be delayed. Operator873 connect 05:47, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Operator873 Yes I am aware of the balance of work and wiki. I am also aware of consensus, however, you like others have failed to show where an admins bot got consensus. In actuality looking at other admin bots I don’t see any getting consensus just the approval to run and no discussion that has gone this long or into such a debate. One recent 2021 had 2 users comment on it. I don’t see any other admin ones though. Are admins exempt from needing community consensus, ran manually or auto, with or without AWB, on community pages and articles or user talk spaces? We do not have anyone else at your level that is active. Thanks - Da LambTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 05:55, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
At my level? I'm just a sysop. There are other sysops active and even crat's floating about. I'm not an authority or source of approval here. Also, is appropriate, despite being written about RfD. You're right. There are other things on the wiki. Other bots had different approval processes and etc... But we are here now and discussing your bot. Not any other. Operator873 connect 06:03, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Operator873 I understand that but I’m talking about on simple. I do not agree that every other bot is treated differently then when it comes to mine because I’m not an admin it seems I’m not trusted and am a target. What about does not apply as this appears to be more about me as an editor and not the appropriate process or the process being applied uniformly to all bots despite the level of the owner. However, Chenzw has responded and specifically authorized the things I can and cannot do so I will be going by that. Thanks - Da LambTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 06:30, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
From a technical perspective, these two bots serve the same purpose (archiving) and use the same codebase, so ordinarily this would have been a relatively simple matter if the bot works in a fully backward-compatible manner without any intervention required from users. With that said, this wiki operates on consensus and it would be remiss of me to ignore the concerns that at least 2 (or 3?) other editors have raised across multiple pages (this one, the AWB one etc.) over the past few days. Therefore, I am explicitly prescribing the below conditions under which the bot is approved (or not) to run:
  • Archiving existing user talk pages that already have the archive template {{User:MiszaBot/config}}, as long as the bot is not prohibited by {{bots}} or equivalent: approved
  • Archiving existing project-space pages that already have the archive template {{User:MiszaBot/config}}, as long as the bot is not prohibited by {{bots}} or equivalent: approved
  • If the page (including the archive template's parameters) needs to be modified in any way before PDLBotArchiver is able to process the page: not approved
  • (for the avoidance of doubt) If the page (regardless of namespace) uses {{bots}} to only opt-in to SassoBot (i.e. opt-out of all bots by default): not approved
  • (for the avoidance of doubt) If the page (regardless of namespace) uses {{bots}} to opt-out of other bot(s), but not PDLBotArchiver (i.e. opt-in to all bots by default): approved, subjected to above conditions.
  • Any other situation not covered by the above: assume a precautionary approach and treat as not approved
I am writing this with the following in mind:
  • It has indeed been a while since SassoBot was running, and there is a legitimate maintenance interest in ensuring that talk pages (regardless of namespace) continue to be archived during SassoBot's downtime.
  • While Djsasso (SassoBot's operator) has not edited for a couple of months already, he is still considered an active administrator per our Inactive administrators policy, and with real-life commitments it is not unusual for some of our editors (especially on this small wiki) to be away for a few months.
  • Djsasso has not indicated that he intends to decommission SassoBot, nor relinquish the bot's responsibility in archiving pages.
And to clarify what I meant by "drop-in replacement", this approval is granted with the understanding that the bot will operate in a fully-compatible manner such that its edits/archiving work will be indistinguishable from SassoBot (i.e. as if SassoBot has been continuing to operate all this time). It does not mean to say that this bot will replace SassoBot, and I think it is discourteous to assume such especially considering that Djsasso still remains an editor on this wiki.
As I alluded to in an earlier edit, I am rather curious as to why some community pages are explicitly using the {{bots}} mechanism, but that is a conversation for a different day and different forum. Chenzw  Talk  06:09, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I fully agree with you here Chenzw. Thank you for clarifying it. Operator873 connect 06:22, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Chenzw Then I need to revert Simple Talk, it was opted in only to allow SassoBot. No other changes were made. That was the reason I wanted AWB to see if there are any other pages that have the nobot or allow only SassoBot so they can be brought up. We also discussed allowing me to add my bot next to SassoBot on those public pages of which you approved, but according to what you just wrote I cannot do this now.
  • Now if I see a page (whether public or user) am I allowed to seek consensus on the public or ask the user (for their TP only) if they want it archived and show them the instructions and assist if they would like? I can not think of too many pages, however without running AWB I have no way to know how many pages the SassoBot only restriction was on.
To note: It will automatically honor the request of the page (I.e., nobots) then it will skip it as designed. Thanks - Da LambTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 06:26, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I retracted my earlier statement regarding allowing the addition of the bot to existing {{bots}} templates, considering the concerns that other editors have raised.
  • If the user agrees to modify the {{bots}} template to allow your bot, then there is no issue.
  • For community pages, please seek consensus.
Note that users should not be asked to delist SassoBot from the {{bots}} template on their pages, and they should be aware of the possibility that SassoBot will resume operations in future. Chenzw  Talk  06:35, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Chenzw Agreeing to the terms. I will remove my bot from Simple Talk and put it back to just SassoBot, then seek consensus to add it. Is it a normal 7 day process and any specific template I need to use? Thanks - Da LambTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 06:55, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Have you looked at Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Bots? Seems there are 236 transclusions. That's a lot of clicking, yes... but AWB, on this project, is really only permitted for a specific task like replacing this deprecated key in a template with the new one. Admittedly, I'm not sure what you were actually wanting to do with AWB, but the tool I linked will tell you where the {{bots}} template has been linked. Operator873 connect 06:38, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Operator873 So clicking on the first link in the link you provided for Teen Idols, it does not contain the bot link anywhere in it. If you look at simple talk it has the template I am trying to find right at the top of the page. All I was going to is search specifically for {{Bots Allow=SassoBot}} or {{nobots}} to build a list of pages that contain that on them. Then I know which pages are restricted and I can seek consensus or reach out to users who may have it restricted to SassoBot only the nobots I won’t worry about but still want the pages in case something is marked as such and shouldn’t be. Thanks - Da LambTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 06:51, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That seems to indicate the bot template is likely being incorrectly transcluded from another template on that page. Templates are terrifying things that easily get away from you. Which is why I avoid messing with them, if possible. Operator873 connect 06:54, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Chenzw So it did it’s first automated run and did as it should have. 3 editors and 1 public talk were archived. It skipped over Simple Talk as there is no consensus (or any votes yet) to allowing my bot to do it. No errors were noticed on any runs yesterday or today and it is exclusion compliant. I will get the regular bot box up with all the information later tonight or tomorrow. Thank you for all of your help! And yours as well @Operator873 in helping me on the backend. It is all much appreciated! Thanks - Da LambTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 04:21, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@PotsdamLamb: If it would help, I can use AWB build a list of pages that use the current archiving bot, then search just those for the bots strings you mention. Let me know. -- Auntof6 (talk) 04:29, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Citation bot[change source]

  • Contributions
  • Operator: Smith609
  • Programming language:
  • Function: Citation Fixes
  • Description: Currently Citation Bot runs on I would like to request that it be approved here.

Here is an example edit:

I will be fixing the links in the edit summary to point to the real pages on -AManWithNoPlan (talk) 14:48, 22 February 2022 (UTC)}}Reply[reply]

Looks good so far. I will see if I can kick off a few more examples, but its pretty well hardened on so I will almost definitely approve it. -Djsasso (talk) 15:05, 22 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Right now the bot is having issues with captcha, I have special code for also saving the edit "as the user", so here is the improved edit summary that no longer points to the wrong place: AManWithNoPlan (talk) 15:09, 22 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah I am guessing the lack of a flag. I will flag it and keep an eye on it for a bit. But I am sure its pretty good. Only issue that I am concerned about is if we have all our templates it uses up to date. I guess I willhave to go through them all. -Djsasso (talk) 15:22, 22 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@AManWithNoPlan: Since the webpage console doesn't have a way to specify simple as the language you want it to check. Is there another way you can get it to check a category like you can do it there? Individual pages are definitely working with your script. -Djsasso (talk) 16:18, 22 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
console fixed. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 17:51, 22 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Approved. Perfect, looks great. Been wanting to get a bot doing this for awhile. I had been doing manual runs with AWB prior to this. Didn't realize getting Citation Bot running here would be so easy or I would have bugged you all earlier. -Djsasso (talk) 19:44, 22 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Simple uses the same citation core as english, so life is easy. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 19:46, 22 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

BattyBot[change source]

I'm looking forward to a response to Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage/Archive 2#AWB access for GoingBatty/BattyBot. Thanks for your consideration. --GoingBatty (talk) 16:55, 16 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I gave your bot access to AWB. Go ahead and do 100 trial edits. -Djsasso (talk) 20:34, 17 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Djsasso: Trial complete. See these 100 edits. These last few edits have a redlink to "general fixes" in the edit summary. Future edits will have a correct link to "general fixes" (like the middle edits have). GoingBatty (talk) 17:41, 22 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Approved. Ok I approved for citation fixes from the above categories. I will flag momentarily. You probably already know but AWB usually wants you to log out and log back in once I grant the flag so that it recognizes you have the flag otherwise your edits will still flood recent changes. -Djsasso (talk) 20:01, 22 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ZabesBot[change source]

  • Contributions
  • Operator: Zabe
  • Programming language: Pywikibot
  • Function: interwiki, double redirects
  • Description: I would like to clean up the remaining interwiki links in simplewiki. Should be covered by automatic approval.

--Zabe (talk) 21:11, 22 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alright do your trial 100 edits and I will take a look. -Djsasso (talk) 03:34, 24 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done. --Zabe (talk) 11:45, 24 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Approved. -Djsasso (talk) 20:40, 17 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FerienBot[change source]

  • Contributions
  • Operator: Ferien
  • Programming language: WPCleaner
  • Function: Fixes Check Wikipedia error 61
  • Description: Error 61 = reference before punctuation. This is an error that always needs clearing out every now and again, but it is very tedious and most of the errors can be done by a bot. This is what fixes look like. On the English Wikipedia error 61 is fixed by w:User:WikiCleanerBot, but here we don't have a bot to fix these errors currently.

--Ferien (talk) 22:30, 14 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Approved for trial (50 edits). --Chenzw  Talk  03:10, 15 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Done --Ferien (talk) 09:28, 15 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am good with these edits. Since Chenzw started the trial I will wait to flag to give him a chance to do so but being that he isn't super active at the moment if he hasn't responded in a couple days I will flag it. -Djsasso (talk) 13:28, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Approved. --Chenzw  Talk  13:34, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]