TestWiki:Bot approval requests

From TestWiki
(Redirected from BAR)
Bot Approval Requests
What is this page used for?
  • If you want to submit a request to run a bot on this wiki, you've come to the right place. If you're looking for administrator permissions, see here.
Tips for a successful request:
  • Be sure to replace Requested right with details on the activity(ies) your bot will perform and any basic technical specifications. You'll see what we're talking about once you hit "Submit bot request for review" below.
Important Notes
  • Please be sure to review TestWiki:Policies before making any request.
  • A consul will review your request and either (a) approve it, (b) decline it, or (c) follow up with you if they have further questions prior to making a decision. You may want to watchlist this page.

Examknow (Status: Approved)

  • User: Examknow ( talk · contribs · logs )
  • Bot name: EkWikiBot
  • Bot function: Blocks and unblocks users, deletes pages, gets user edit count, and has a logbot function. The bot is controlled from an IRC interface. For more information, please see User:EkWikiBot/Commands.
  • Reason for requesting: EkWikiBot could be a very useful tool for administrators on testwiki. For those wanting to see it in action, the bot currently resides in Template:Freenode and can join other channels on request. RhinosF1 has been active in the testing and development of the bot and can attest to its usefulness and security.

Examknow (talk) 17:24, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

LGTM, if no one does it before then and there’s no objections, I’ll process it when I sort out the next code release. Happy for this to be inactive-exempt as well. RhinosF1 (talk) 17:32, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Approved for non-test deletions, blocking and unblocking. RhinosF1 (talk) 11:57, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Naleksuh (Status: Approved)

  • User: Naleksuh ( talk · contribs · logs )
  • Bot name: Naleksuh BOT
  • Bot function: Clears sandbox, almost all wikis have something that does this. Can also revert other tests as needed.
  • Reason for requesting: Helps with taskgoal

Naleksuh (talk) 08:01, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

In the unflagged run [1] - it was set to clear after one minute. This time can be increased to something like two hours as needed. Naleksuh (talk) 08:01, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
That diff looks good to me. Is the source for your bot public/open source at all (just curious)? Given the low activity in this sandbox, I would think something like checking and clearing the sandbox every 12-24 hours would be sufficient (to minimize the number of checks your bot has to make). Assuming the bot's locally hosted on a Raspberry Pi or something? One other question I had, is this bot setup just to check and clear, at a prescribed interval, sandbox, and could it easily be set up to also check any */sandbox* pages in User: namespace, or any pages which use {{sandbox heading}} other than {{sandbox heading}} itself? Dmehus (talk) 08:31, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
@Dmehus: Once flagged, it will be running on a cloud windows vps (although is on my local pc for testing currently). It processes recent changes edits within one second of them happening, but starts a timer that requires no edits on the sandbox for one hour at which point its cleared. This could be applied to other pages (preferrably by title, but by contents as well), although I wouldn't want it to reset sandboxes in userspace. Naleksuh (talk) 09:10, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
@Naleksuh: Thanks for the reply. Do you already have a cloud-based VPS for which you are currently paying? Hopefully it doesn't consume too many resources for your own VPS. This may possibly be a candidate for one of the Miraheze bot servers; I'm not sure. RhinosF1 would be able to say definitively. Good point on the userspace sandbox clearing—users may not want their sandboxes cleared. From my less technical perspective, this all SGTM in terms of the proposed bot's clear use case and how it operates. Dmehus (talk) 09:13, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
MirahezeBots is currently only accepting bots from within users with access to the previous infrastructure or that were hosted on Wikimedia Toolforge as at the service launch. See here for more information. RhinosF1 (talk) 09:21, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
@RhinosF1: Is this to imply that I can't run any bot without using this requirements, or just to use Miraheze servers? Is running such a bot under my own end any problem? Naleksuh (talk) 19:28, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
I was replying to Dmehus. I am happy to approve this assuming no one raises concerns. RhinosF1 (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Approved. RhinosF1 (talk) 12:15, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Naleksuh (Status: Not Done)

Naleksuh (talk) 07:18, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

@Naleksuh: You were right to make a new bot request as I think the original approval only covered the Sandbox and possibly other community sandboxes as may be created as well. Looking over your request, it's not clear to me how this bot would operate and to what revision(s) it would clear any testing? Moreover, changes, even small changes, can be made to the testing pages and so reversion to a set, earlier revision would be undesirable in this case. Without knowing (a) the specifics and (b) how your bot would take into account changes to the testing pages, so that it doesn't revert to an earlier revision, I can't really offer further comment. Can you provide further details on the specific operating parameters and specifications and also how it would take into account good-faith changes to the testing pages? Then there's also the philosophical question of necessity. Public Test Wiki is, absolutely, a place to test the tools, but it also provides a testing environment for human administrators to interact with other editors or perform general mopping left behind by other editors. Often this doesn't require them to interact with other administrators, but it does give them exposure to monitoring Special:RecentChanges and Special:NewPages, among other places, and performing such cleanup. So, those are the comments I have at this point. Dmehus (talk) 22:09, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

What is testing pages are determined by human. Extends the sandbox to other things such as Restoring Deletion test, unblocking User:Example, etc.... Naleksuh (talk) 03:07, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

@Naleksuh: The unblocking of User:Example could potentially be a good trial expansion for your bot, but I'd prefer the interval to be no less than 24 hours. An administrator could be doing various tests that requires one or more test blocks on that user in a few hours. To my mind, it's much less likely that any test blocks should need to continue past 24 hours and the probability that the administrator had forgotten to unblock User:Example increases, markedly, at that interval. Restoring of deletion test is not something that needs to be restored by a bot, in my view. If an administrator had forgotten to undelete that test page, it will get restored by another administrator (perhaps as part of more testing), bureaucrat, or consul quickly enough. In terms of changes to test pages, what I'm talking about is maybe a human administrator notes a spelling mistake or grammatical error on a page and corrects it. Or, maybe they are constructively helping the project and improve our categorization scheme. Thus, without seeing how your bot would determine what updates are good (i.e., will it be using some sort of machine learning/artificial intelligence, or will it be simply reverting to a set stable revision number?), my concern is that a lot of good-faith updates to test pages will be undone. Dmehus (talk) 13:36, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

 Comment It's been over a week since I last replied to this bot approval request and, while I provided tentative support to a trial expansion of the unblocking of the Example users, the more I think about it, and from conversations with RhinosF1 on Discord, I'm not even sure that is necessary as it could be done through the MediaWiki software (presumably, via the abuse filter whereby userName is equal to Example, Example2, or Example3 and the users' status has been blocked after n period of time (where n equals the defined interval). So, for that reason and the above reasons, I'm not in favour of the proposed expansion. Dmehus (talk) 16:12, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Not just user Example, but all resets in general. See TestWiki:Testing pages for a list. Naleksuh (talk) 17:59, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
@Naleksuh: By resets, are you referring to other unblocks of other users as well, or to the pages in TestWiki:Testing pages? In either case, it's still unclear to me, without seeing the source code for your bot or seeing detailed operating parameters and specifications, how and under what conditions your bot will either (a) unblock the Example users or other users or (b) know how to reset the pages at TestWiki:Testing pages, especially taking into account good-faith improvements to those pages. Dmehus (talk) 20:07, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
@Dmehus: i.e. unprotecting protection test, reverting displaytitle test, etc... Naleksuh (talk) 20:17, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
@Naleksuh: Okay, thanks, that's a bit more help. I'm not seeing any test edits of Displaytitle test, which is fine since your bot hasn't been approved for a trial, but I would being willing to support a trial run for 10 edits of Displaytitle test to see it in action, as it's (a) pretty non-controversial and (b) a less active testing page. For the protection test and deletion test, I would say that I don't feel there's a clear need here. By its very nature, protection test is for testing page protection, so the very act of unprotecting a page is itself a practicing of using the administrator's tools. For similar reasons, undeleting a page that was inadvertently not undeleted is, itself, a test of the deletion and undeletion function. Dmehus (talk) 20:25, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Category test is also something I could provisionally support for a trial run, after which it could be permanently approved, as this is equally non-controversial (i.e., removing of test categories added to that page). Dmehus (talk) 20:28, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Despite my love of bots and automation, I'm inclined to say this is automation for the sake of automation. I'm not massively seeing the need here and I don't think the task is as black and white as it seems on paper. I therefore am not willing to accept this as described. RhinosF1 (talk) 21:57, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Revi (Status: Approved)

Dmehus (talk) 00:21, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 Approved indefinitely as this LGTM. Dmehus (talk) 00:22, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
I see this was approved one minute after the discussion went up. I would hope there is a bit more conversation, but hopefully Reception will not object. Naleksuh (talk) 00:24, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
@Naleksuh: I seriously doubt @Reception123: would object. Revi was a former system administrator, and is well respected among the team, hence why I granted the bot flag without having checked to see if we had a bot approval in place on TestWiki. Also, Revibot previously operated on TestWiki before we had a bot approval request regime, so I sort of thought it was essentially grandfathered. Nevertheless, now we have this approval in place, so it is probably better overall, I think. Dmehus (talk) 00:32, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, I would think that the grandfather clause makes sense here. So I agree that discussion, was not truly necessary. Sorry for any problems caused, but it is  Done now. Naleksuh (talk) 00:49, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Agent Isai (Status: Approved)

  • User: Agent Isai ( talk · contribs · logs )
  • Bot name: AutoImport
  • Bot function: Ability to mass replace specific text strings in pages
  • Reason for requesting: Sometimes after user account renamings, old links which used to link to the user account's old username are suddenly rendered broken which may lead to some confusion should a user in the future be checking archives and be confused on why a user suddenly no longer exists. Or after a page move, it may be necessary to correct the links to the page. It is then up to someone to fix these links or else render them broken indefinitely should a redirect not exist. Sometimes, this task can be painstaking and can take time to do. For this reason, I am requesting the bot flag for my bot to help in this field. This bot will be able to perform mass text replacements when requested or needed, primarily to fix links after user account renames or page moves but will also be available to replace other text strings if requested by a Consul. Where possible (for links), the link will be fixed but the bot will use piped links to retain the original text as it looked when it was posted in order to preserve any page as it looked to prevent confusion. Thank you for your consideration. Agent Isai Talk to me! 21:21, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
    Agent Isai I'm willing to grant this, but not for as broadly as you propose. I'm willing to grant it for either (i) global renames, (ii) page moves (typically those done by a Consul, or (iii) a request from a Consul, ideally made on-wiki (if possible). Would that be sufficient? Also, can you articulate a clear edit summary(ies) you propose to use, and additionally link to your bot's original and adapted source code (if possible)? Also, will it be run on a cron schedule, manually, or both? If either of the latter two, how frequently do you anticipate it editing, and if the former, what schedule? Dmehus (talk) 21:28, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
    In effect, as we discussed, we're essentially arguing the same point. As I mentioned on IRC, the original scope was to allow leeway for potential future Consul requests and given that we seem to be in general agreement, this revised scope is fine as it's essentially what I'm requesting either way. As for the edit summaries, they would be similar to your boilerplate edit summary (with some tweaks, as needed, of course) but would link the username request and such. The bot is a PyWikiBot install with a few tweaks for my setup but nothing huge. It does feature various scripts which aren't in PyWikiBot core but those won't be run on this wiki and don't affect any core scripts. This bot will also be run manually but can be adapted to run automatically at a later date. Agent Isai Talk to me! 22:26, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
    Agent Isai, thanks for confirming that. This  LGTM and is thus done. As well, RhinosF1 was involved in the discussion on GitHub, as you may have seen and seemed to have no objections to this. Dmehus (talk) 22:30, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Naleksuh BOT (Status: On hold)

  • User: Naleksuh
  • Bot name: Naleksuh BOT
  • Bot function: Remove sysop flag when a bureaucrat blocks a non-bureaucrat
  • Reason for requesting: This code was written 4 months ago in response to this discussion surrounding users unblocking themself. This function, if approved, will effectively resolve this issue without the blocker having to forcefully remove the sysop flag.

This is designed to only apply when a bureaucrat blocks a non-bureaucrat. This ensures that this does not allow non-bureaucrat sysops to shut out other sysops (this is supposed to be delegated to bureaucrats), and that bueaucrats cannot have their permissions removed by other bureaucrats (this is also necessary because if this were implemented the bot would have to be a consul, but without it, it doesn't). Naleksuh (talk) 06:00, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Due to the nature of the bot and the controversy that surrounded the events which preceded this, it would be best to have community consensus in favor of the addition of such a bot. I'm marking this request 'on hold' pending consensus for such a bot. Please seek consensus for this on the Community portal, thanks. Agent Isai Talk to me! 00:54, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
@Agent Isai: Please see Project:Community_portal#Users_unblocking_themself for info. Also, are you talking about proxies here too? Naleksuh (talk) 18:34, 8 January 2023 (UTC)