Bots noticeboard |
---|
This is a message board for coordinating and discussing bot-related issues on Wikipedia (also including other programs interacting with the MediaWiki software). Although this page is frequented mainly by bot owners, any user is welcome to leave a message or join the discussion here. For non-urgent issues or bugs with a bot, a message should be left on the bot operator's talk page. If discussion with the operator does not resolve the issue or the problem is urgent and widespread, the problem can be reported by following the steps outlined in WP:BOTISSUE. This is not the place for requests for bot approvals or requesting that tasks be done by a bot. General questions about the MediaWiki software (such as the use of templates, etc.) should be asked at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). |
Bot-related archives (v·t·) |
---|
User:ProcseeBot
Bot has been desysoped, should the operator want to reactivate it, they are invited to start a thread here. — xaosflux Talk 22:55, 11 May 2022 (UTC) |
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- ProcseeBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights)
- ProcseeBot (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
It was raised at WP:BN (diff) that ProcseeBot has not performed any logged actions (i.e. blocks) since November 2020 (log). Given that the bot is not high-profile I'm not really surprised that its inactivity managed to pass under the radar of probably everyone except xaosflux, since they've been removing the bot's name from the inactive admins report for a while. That being said, Slakr seems to have become somewhat inactive as of late, and pppery has suggested the bot be stripped of its rights. Since its activity is primarily a bot-related task and not an admin-related task, I'm bringing it here for review. I have left Slakr a talk page note about this discussion. Primefac (talk) 07:29, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- I feel like for security reasons we can probably apply the usual activity requirements to just the bot (rather than including if the operator is active). If an adminbot hasn't logged an admin action for a year it probably shouldn't be flagged as such and a crat can always reflag if it ever needs to be active again. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:43, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Primefac I did contact Slakr about this a few months ago (User_talk:Slakr/Archive_26#ProcseeBot); where they indicated it may be reactivated, thus why I have been skipping it during removals (as its admin access is an extension of its operators who is still an admin). So policy wise, think we are fine. Shifting off my 'crat hat and putting on my BAG hat - yes I think we should deflag inactive adminbots; their operators can always ask at BN to reinstate so long as the bot hasn't been deauthorized. — xaosflux Talk 09:36, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- I did figure you contacted them, and from a BAG perspective "it might be reactivated soon" is always good enough to leave things be. Shifting to my own 'crat hat, though, a temporary desysop until it's back up and running is reasonable, especially since it's been 1.5 years. Courtesy ping to ST47 who runs ST47ProxyBot. Primefac (talk) 09:47, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think we should make a redline rule on this, and that if these rare cases arise a BOTN discussion like this is the best way to deal with things. In this case, baring a response from the operator within a week, that this is going to be activated in the month, my position is that we should desysop the bot. — xaosflux Talk 09:53, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- I think removing advanced perms from inactive bots is a good idea, and allowing them to be returned on-request if the botop wants to reactivate the bot (as long as the approval is still valid). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:56, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- So, does anyone intend to implement the unanimous agreement here? * Pppery * it has begun... 19:13, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
DumbBOT
I'm hoping that someone can help me with a small problem with DumbBot and it's categorizing maintenance categories.
The daily Orphaned non-free use Wikipedia files categories (like Category:Orphaned non-free use Wikipedia files as of 29 April 2022) should be placed in the Category:Orphaned non-free use Wikipedia files category but, for some reason, after April 29th, DumbBOT began placing them in Category:All orphaned non-free use Wikipedia files category. The Image Deletion categories are organized pretty consistently the same so this is out of the ordinary and I'm not sure what caused the change in categorization last week. This is the only daily Image Deletion category that was altered of the 9 category areas that are created for daily review. It doesn't look like bot operator User:Tizio is active but I was wondering if someone who was familiar with the bot could give this a look. It's a small glitch, not a huge problem but I thought I'd bring it up here in case anyone knows of a solution or why the categorization would suddenly change. Many thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 21:12, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- Fixed in Template:Orphaned non-free use subcat starter * Pppery * it has begun... 21:16, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- Wow, that was fast. Thank you, * Pppery *. Liz Read! Talk! 21:58, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Bot that fixes links to nonexistent category pages?
Just wondering: Is there a bot that currently performs edits related to nonexistent category pages, such as removing the links from articles or creating the category? (Preferably the former?) Steel1943 (talk) 18:35, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Steel1943: The maintenance list Special:WantedCategories is typically very, very short these days; I think this is done by a few of our category specialists. I don't know whether they do this mostly by hand, but I wouldn't be surprised: you need to triage whether this is the result of a typo or vandal edit, a category deletion where articles or templates were not adjusted properly, or shows an actual need for the redlinked category. —Kusma (talk) 20:45, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Controversy About Report Being Generated by Bot
There is a deletion discussion at MFD which is really a bot issue. A bot is generating a report that appears to be a hierarchical list of deleted categories. Another editor has requested that the list be deleted, as an evasion of deletion policy.
- User:Qwerfjkl/preservedCategories (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Qwerfjkl/preservedCategories (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Qwerfjkl, who operates the bot and coded the task to generate the list, says that this has been coordinated with User:Enterprisey. User:Pppery says that the list should be deleted. I haven't studied the issue to have an opinion on whether the list should continue to be generated, or whether the bot task that generates the list should be turned off. However, I don't think that MFD is an appropriate forum to decide whether the bot should be generating the list. If the list is deleted, then the bot will generate a new version of the list, and Pppery says that they will tag the new version of the list as G4. Then maybe after that is done twice, the title may be salted, and the bot may crash trying to generate it. That doesn't seem like the way to solve a design issue. The question is whether there is a need for the bot to be producing the list. If so, leave it alone. If not, stop the bot. If this isn't the right forum either, please let us know where is the right forum, because it is my opinion that MFD is not the right forum. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:37, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
- Per Wikipedia:Bot policy,
if you are concerned that a bot no longer has consensus for its task, you may formally appeal or ask for re-examination of a bot's approval.
The policy links to this noticeboard for initiating an appeal discussion. I see BOTN as the appropriate venue for this. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 23:44, 17 May 2022 (UTC)- My first inclination was to agree, but tasks that run under the policy exemption, as this one does, seem to be outside BAG's purview. As a practical matter, I think it's better for the community to directly decide (in a non-BON area) whether the task enjoys consensus. Even in bot appeals it helps to have the result of a relevant consensus process on the task (usually RfC). Userspace tasks may not require pre-approval, but as with any editing behaviour I think consensus is still able to put a halt to it if people find it to be problematic. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:04, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
- The bot appears to be operating under WP:BOTUSERSPACE. There's no approval to review. Whether a BAG member was involved in the discussion that led to the creation of the bot has no weight. I'm not sure whether MFD is the right forum (versus say reopening the VPR discussion that led to the task in the first place), but it's better than here. Anomie⚔ 01:59, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
- MFD is a silly forum in which to discuss a bot task. A Delete would mean to throw away the output from the bot, rather than to stop the bot task as such. If the editors here think that Bot noticeboard is also the wrong forum, then maybe the bot should be allowed to continue to generate the list.
- I started out not having an opinion, and now have an opinion that the MFD is misguided.
- Thank you for your comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:31, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- If MFD decides that the content shouldn't exist, then WP:G4 would apply and admins would be justified in taking appropriate action to prevent the bot from recreating it. The oddness comes from whether MFD is the appropriate forum for overriding the original VPR discussion. Anomie⚔ 11:48, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- On first pass, so long as this is low volume it doesn't seem to be in direct violation of the bot policy as it is in userspace. That doesn't mean that it is appropriate, or that it isn't disruptive. Would like to hear some feedback from the operator. — xaosflux Talk 14:09, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- Operator notified. — xaosflux Talk 14:10, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what the best venue to deal with this is, but my initial feeling is that this is a bad idea, mostly because the bot keeps making pages that it seems noone is reading, then requesting that the same page be deleted - making needless work for admins who have to constantly clean up after it. — xaosflux Talk 14:14, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- Can someone point to the VPR discussion that is being mentioned above? — xaosflux Talk 14:16, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- OK, seems this is Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_187#Automatically_generate_a_record_of_the_contents_of_deleted_categories_at_the_time_of_deletion - which I don't really see as representative of any strong community consensus - seems like it just sort of died out. — xaosflux Talk 14:20, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- Comment - This seems to be getting more complicated. However, having a bot generate a report that needs to be deleted without being used sounds like a bad idea. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:47, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for the link to the Village Pump discussion, that makes it much clearer what this is about. "Listify and delete" outcomes in CfD discussions are rare to begin with. But, if that is the outcome, the category is kept until listification has really taken place. However, it may happen that the list is initially created but deleted later e.g. because sources were not provided. That very rare problem could be solved in a different way if (in case of a "listify and delete" outcome) closers of CfD discussions would list the category content on the talk page belonging to the discussion page. So we can stop the bot without any harm. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:12, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Fayenatic london, Bibliomaniac15, and Explicit: pinging some administrators involved in CfD closing. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:15, 19 May 2022 (UTC)