Wikipedia talk:Bots

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Requests for the bot flag should be made on this page. This wiki uses the standard bot policy, and allows global bots and automatic approval of certain types of bots. Other bots should apply below. Global bot flag requests are handled at Meta:Steward requests.


If you are requesting bot status, please use the Current requests section. For other matters dealing with bots, please use the "discussion section".


Current requests[change source]

Put new requests at the top. Look here for a form to use to request bot status.

HousekeepingBot[change source]

  • Operator: FNAFPUPPETMASTER
  • Programming language: Pywikibot
  • Function: Tagging
  • Description: The bot would tag new page protections, and remove them when it expired. It would be manually run every Thursday.

--rollingbarrels (talk) 01:09, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Which pywikibot script will you be using for this task? Chenzw  Talk  02:11, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
@Chenzw: blockpageschecker, addtext, & listpages. rollingbarrels (talk) 02:22, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
@FNAFPUPPETMASTER: Does "manually run every Thursday" mean it would only update once a week? Pages can be protected and then unprotected both in less than a week. Computer Fizz (talk) 03:25, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
@Computer Fizz: Of course, but once I get it selfhosted, It'll be fully automatic(running once an hour) rollingbarrels (talk) 03:29, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
@FNAFPUPPETMASTER: Asesome, once an hour definitely sounds better than once a week. Is there a reason you can't just use EventSource to make it update immediately though? Computer Fizz (talk) 03:30, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
@Computer Fizz: I'd rather start with hourly updates in case it has a lot of false positives for the first 3 weeks. rollingbarrels (talk) 03:57, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
False positives really only happen with machine learning, I don't see how it would fail to recognize whether or not a page is protected Computer Fizz (talk) 03:58, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
 (change conflict)  False positives? Why would such a task even result in false positives? Chenzw  Talk  03:59, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

@Computer Fizz: @Chenzw: By that I mean when a page protection status is changed (level or duration) within one hour of it happening. rollingbarrels (talk) 04:06, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
That is not a false positive. That just means the protection template tagging is outdated, which is supposedly what your bot is aiming to resolve. Chenzw  Talk  04:08, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
@Chenzw:For the first little while while I'm selfhosting, I'm planning to make a log that both acts as a failsafe in case I make a breaking change and it loses its current "monitoring" of a page, and as a double checker to make sure that the page has the right protection and the right duration. It will update every hour because, like I said earlier, I want it to only have the latest tag, not both tags. rollingbarrels (talk) 04:17, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
I am not following. The blockpageschecker script corrects and removes protection templates from pages as necessary, so I don't see how you can end up with more than one protection template on an article if you run the bot. Chenzw  Talk  05:04, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
@Chenzw:The tag would only be double in the logs, the front-end changes aren't affected. rollingbarrels (talk) 06:02, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Why would there even be a double entry in the logs? Chenzw  Talk  06:04, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
The bot's own logs, not Special:Logs rollingbarrels (talk) 06:06, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
I am quite aware that you are talking about your bot's own logs, but why would there even be duplicate entries in the logs? Chenzw  Talk  06:09, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

@Chenzw: Ah, sorry, I just figured out a fix. Instead of looking Special:ProtectedPages for pages that it hadn't seen yet with a certain protection, it could monitor Special:Logs for protection via python's sseclient. rollingbarrels (talk) 06:17, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Doesn't the existance of this bot mean we'll have to grant editprotected to the bots group? Perhaps it would be better if this bot was run by someone who's already an admin on their main account. Computer Fizz (talk) 07:37, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
@Computer Fizz: If I need to, I can send a message reminding the blocking admin to place a {{pp}} when they fully protect it and send it again when it would expire, if you aren't comfortable with me having a tool that has the editprotected flag. However, admins can block and mass rollback this and other bots just like a normal user. rollingbarrels (talk) 07:45, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm also willing to put this request on hold until I get more experience (possibly: 2-3 weeks) rollingbarrels (talk) 08:00, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
What I think should happen here is that an already existing bot is sysopped and then starts adding the protection notices. Most likely one owned by an admin. Computer Fizz (talk) 08:32, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
I am not particularly keen on granting approval for this task. There are currently 12 articles with a non-indef protection period, which is a minuscule fraction of our total articles. Furthermore, protection templates are not routinely used by administrators - most of the time it is left to MediaWiki:Protectedpagetext to inform prospective editors of page protection. Chenzw  Talk  09:24, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
That's the purpose of the bot, to do small, unnecessary but still useful tasks. rollingbarrels (talk) 09:29, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Denied. I have been thinking this over for a few hours. But I am not comfortable giving the bot flag to an editor that is as new to this wiki as you are. Especially considering your past on en.wiki. Also as Chenzw points out, we don't really use the protection templates here. However, we can probably add this functionality to an existing bot if it is desired. -DJSasso (talk) 01:01, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

┌──────────────────────────┘
As I mentioned above, any bot that does this will most likely need to be controlled by an admin since it'll need to edit fully protected pages. I don't think it really matters other than that as long as some bot is adding them (i don't see why the software doesn't add it, but oh well this is the next best thing...) Computer Fizz (talk) 01:26, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Probably doesn't add it automatically because it uses MediaWiki:Protectedpagetext to indicate protection. The lock icons are really just "beautification" which would be up to anyone using mediawiki to decide if they want to do or not on their own wiki. But yes you are correct it would need to be an admin bot to edit fully protected pages which would mean it would have to be an admin running it. -DJSasso (talk) 01:33, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
@DJSasso: It still may be a good idea to have the lock notices. Obviously it would be tedious for a human to do this, especially with short protections that only last one or two hours, but I don't see a problem with having a bot do it, as long as the owner can be trusted to edit fully-protected pages. Computer Fizz (talk) 01:37, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
The bot would have access to anything an admin can do. So it wouldn't just be trusting them to edit fully protected pages but with everything an admin has access to. But yes. I am looking right now at the scripts to see if its worth me setting it up here on my bot which already runs nightly. However would need community approval to flag the bot as admin. So it may not be worth the effort. Will look into what those scripts entail first. -DJSasso (talk) 01:41, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Policy Discussion[change source]

Request a new bot[change source]