Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Cyberbot I 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA. The result of the discussion was Approved.

Cyberbot I 1[edit]

Operator: Cyberpower678 (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 22:10, Wednesday March 21, 2012 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): PHP

Source code available: Per request

Function overview: Replace SoxBot's {{badimage}} task. After letting things calm down a little, it has come to my attention that all of SoxBot's task except for this has been taken over. I know my first BRFA was a disaster but this time I'm doing it right.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SoxBot 15

Edit period(s): Task runs once a day at 22:41 UTC

Estimated number of pages affected: No more than the number of files listed here

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Y

Already has a bot flag (Y/N): N

Function details:

Maintains the Bad image list.
Part 1...
  1. Get transclusions of {{badimage}}
  2. For each one, it will check that it is on the bad image list
  3. If it is, it skips. If it isn't, it removes it.
  4. (addendum) If it is on the file talk page, it removes it and adds it to the file page.
Part 2...
  1. Get all images on the bad image list
  2. For each one, it checks if it transcludes {{badimage}}
  3. If it is, it skips. If it isn't, it adds it.
Addendum: Script now designed to recognize {{Restricted use}} template as well but the bot will still place {{badimage}} on restricted images for consistency.

Discussion[edit]

  • Is this the same code that SoxBot ran, or a rewrite? 28bytes (talk) 22:17, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Other than login configuration, it is the exact same code.—cyberpower ChatOffline 22:56, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, thanks. 28bytes (talk) 22:59, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to recuse myself on this one. FWIW, I'm not convinced Cyberpower678 has really understood well enough what went wrong last time to be continuing to try to take over SoxBot tasks; I'd suggest he try writing his own bot instead to hopefully have a fuller appreciation of the details involved. Also FWIW, between the time yesterday when Cyberpower678 effectively pointed out to me that TParis had forgotten he was going to take this task and the time a few hours later when Cyberpower678 started pushing to open this BRFA, I coded up my own version (although I didn't get a chance to upload it until now). Anomie⚔ 23:19, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, sorry about that. Just ran out of time and I didn't want to run code I hadn't taken a look at yet. I support Cyberpower628 taking it on though. He's taking a much slower and careful approach.--v/r - TP 03:47, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's clear that Cyberpower678 really, really wants to run a bot. This task is both straightforward enough and non-mission-critical enough that (IMO) it would be a very good candidate for his first try at running a bot. My main concern is that all of the other SoxBot functionality must be disabled. Right now the bot seems to be puttering around making RfX updates and every-60-second "Actuating readiness of bot" edits (whatever that means) to its sandbox. If there are some guarantees that going forward this bot will only be doing the task(s) for which it is BRFA-approved to do, I would support this request, or at least a trial to see how it goes. It if goes well, great! If not, it's not a mission-critical task and there are other bot ops (as Anomie shows) who could step in and take over the task pretty easily. 28bytes (talk) 23:43, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You have my complete assurance that Cyberbot I will only perform approved tasks outside of its userspace. As a matter of fact I am coding Cyberbot II as we speak to perform some of my own tasks but it will still take a while as my own time available to me at this point is limited due to coming exams.—cyberpower ChatOffline 00:14, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd suggest not even mentioning Cyberbot II or other tasks at this point. Let's take this one task at a time. You want to alleviate the concerns from the last BRFA that you're biting off more than you can chew. 28bytes (talk) 00:28, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    We'll I'm writing this in my spare time whereas here when I initially proposed this bot, I was rushing to push this through approval, so I am taking my time and keeping cool about this. I'm more focused on this bot right now anyways because of the task to be approved. I don't want to give the impression that I didn't learn a thing from my last BRFA. I did learn quite a few things during that horror of a BRFA. Remember, it sent me on a wikibreak to 1) cool off and 2) to ponder about my mistakes I had made.—cyberpower ChatOffline 00:33, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you not do the "Updating readiness of bot." thing so often. It does little more than clutters the recent changes and bot's contributions. What is the exact purpose of this, because this bot does not appear to be time-sensitive or critical. I assume you can safely lower this to checking a few times a day at most, and even then I'm wondering about the usefulness of this. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK

Is 12 times a day ok. It updates that every 2 hours then. It serves the purpose of showing that the bot is up and running in the user page where is says active and ready.—cyberpower ChatOffline 11:43, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But, again, which other bots do this? Is this really crucial information that requires such updating? Does being offline for a few hours or even days going to make a huge impact? —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:10, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I have deactivated the script.—cyberpower ChatOffline 12:45, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway. Approved for trial (≈1 week or ≈7 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Previously approved simplish task, botop concerns somewhat alleviated. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 11:27, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm starting the task up now.—cyberpower ChatOffline 11:43, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The bot has performed 4 edits so far concerning badimage however, I count at least 5 more images in the task log that need to be modified by the bot which it can't do because the image is either protected or blacklisted and prevents edits. Any suggestions?—cyberpower ChatOnline 23:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, yeah, I guess that's why this task should probably be run by a sysop. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 08:40, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so. It's not like every blacklisted image is protected or locked. It certainly doesn't happen immediately. Perhaps this bot could get the administrator flag for just a day or an administrator could manually add the tags.—cyberpower ChatLimited Access 11:21, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bots cannot really get the sysop flag unless botop is and unless specifically approved. So it will have to be an admin tagging the pages, which somewhat limits the scope. I'm not saying you can't run the task though, by all means. Just pointing out the caveat. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 11:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are 396 images it checks and of those, only 6 so far are inhibited. I could in future cases place an {{editprotected}} template on those images that the bot can't edit. If too much happens I may hand the task to some other botop.—cyberpower ChatLimited Access 12:19, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can you post a link to the list of images it was unable to update? 28bytes (talk) 05:44, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
According to the log the following images are unable to be edited:
—cyberpower ChatLimited Access 11:21, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete. This is not an April Fools joke. Task shut down pending approval.—cyberpower ChatOffline 03:39, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

{{BAGAssistanceNeeded}}I know that sometimes this process can be very slow however, there is a possibility where an extended leave from Wikipedia due to real life things going on right now so, I would appreciate if this could be approved or denied. Thank you for your time in this matter.—cyberpower ChatOffline 00:13, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for extended trial. Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. to test all functionality. No strict limits, so you can just leave it running as long as you need to make at least several edits where the tag is removed. Due to low number of edits, it shouldn't be a problem to edit without bot flag. Ping back if the bot doesn't find any pages to edit for an extended time. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 09:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. How many edits should it accumulate before I mark it completed?—cyberpower ChatLimited Access 12:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, no strict limits. Half a dozen tag removals is probably more than enough. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:35, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's assuming that there will be people trying to tag non-blacklisted images with the {{badimage}} tag. I could tag a few non-badimages with this tag when it comes time for the bot to operate and see if the bot picks up and removes it.—cyberpower ChatLimited Access 13:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

During this BRFA, I made an addendum that will allow the bot to recognize misplaced {{Restricted use}} tags since they {{badimage}} was moved to there not too long ago. As evidenced here, you can see I have intentionally added both tags to see if the bot recognizes both of them since it's most likely that editors here will not be adding badimage inappropriately. The bot did perform its task when I started up the script.—cyberpower ChatOnline 23:35, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will the bot also pick up {{bad image}} (with a space) which is another redirect (see here)? Additionally, you might as well get the bot to use the {{Restricted use}} tag rather than {{badimage}} when adding the template to previously untagged images. - Kingpin13 (talk) 15:17, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can get those mods in place to have it recognize {{bad image}} and have it tag {{Restricted use}}. An easy add on.—cyberpower ChatOnline 15:23, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Modification complete. This should do it.—cyberpower ChatOnline 16:39, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just tagged a few random images and removed a few tags from others and tested the modification of the script. It does seem to be working. Let me know if any bugs arise.—cyberpower ChatOnline 17:10, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

{{BAGAssistanceNeeded}} Should I mark this trial complete or would BAG like to see mre edits. This extended trial was started so you guys ould see it properly removing misplaced tags. Since in appropriately tagging images, I decided to tag a few myself and then run the bot. Modifications have been made to recognize {{bad image}} and {{Restricted use}} and now tags with {{Restricted use}} as Kingpin13 suggested.—cyberpower ChatOffline 10:45, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Approved. There don't appear to be any problems. Previously approved task. Still some question over the bot operator (biggest concern seems to be having it run as a non-admin bot). However, I don't see that as a reason not to approve. If it turns out this task does require an admin bot then that can be sorted out. This is a simple enough task, and I think that Cyberpower has demonstrated in this BRfA that he is capable of managing it. Userpage of the bot should be sorted out though, to not be so confusing (since it is only running this one task at the moment). - Kingpin13 (talk) 11:00, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Cyberbot_I_1&oldid=1140115097"