Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:16, 25 January 2015

Overview Dictionary Bot policy Bot Approvals Group Guide Noticeboard Newsletter Bot Requests Requests for Approval Adminbots {{BAG Tools}} Creating a Bot List of bots Activity monitor Status report History Types

• WP:BOTN
• WP:BON

Here we coordinate and discuss Misplaced Pages issues related to bots and other programs interacting with the MediaWiki software. Bot operators are the main users of this noticeboard, but even if you are not one, your comments will be welcome. Just make sure you are aware about our bot policy and know where to post your issue.

Do not post here if you came to

• discuss non-urgent bot issues, bugs and suggestions for improvement. Do that at the bot operator's talk page
• discuss urgent/major bot issues. Do that according to instructions at WP:BOTISSUE
• discuss general questions about the MediaWiki software and syntax. We have the village pump's technical section for that
• request approval for your new bot. Here is where you should do it
• request new functionality for bots. Share your ideas at the dedicated page

De-authorize 7SeriesBOT

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.

As 7SeriesBOT (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions) no longer has administrative permissions, it is no longer capable of completing any tasks. I move to deauthorize/deflag this bot/account. — xaosflux 17:19, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Notifications

Ping to operator: @DangerousPanda: — xaosflux 17:19, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Ping to active BAG members: @Anomie:, @JamesR:, @Magioladitis:, @MBisanz:. — xaosflux 18:39, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments

xaosflux I agree. the bot was not active in the last 4 years anyway. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:09, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Support as above. — JamesR (talk) 20:44, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any need to deauthorize the bot, although I would encourage the operator to make sure its tasks still make sense before reactivating it (should the operator desire to do so). Anomie⚔ 00:47, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

This is an adminbot that has lost its admin bit, it has no available tasks. — xaosflux 01:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't know that we need a formal finding, but I agree. MBisanz 19:40, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

• I've removed the bot flag. –xeno 22:54, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Bababa67

Could somebody knowedgeable with bots, bot flags and BRFA please have a look at User:Bababa67 and subpages? User seems to have a lot there concerning bots, including two subpages of python code (I don't know python at all, so don't know what they do). --Redrose64 (talk) 15:35, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

• Red, from my little bit of ability to read the code, it appears to be someone attempting to imitate User:Lowercase sigmabot III. I'd block the account and get some feedback from The Earwig and sigma on it. — {{U|Technical 13}} 16:59, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Red I'd say blocking them is the best course of action, unless they are willing to remove the content, and seek approval from the BRFA before making any further bot edits. I can confirm, AFAIK, the code is a copy of LSBIII, so probably shouldn't be there. --Mdann52talk to me! 17:15, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
    • I don't see any need to block them; they just seem to be testing things out and not causing any tangible harm and haven't actually made any "bot edits". Why not just edit off the offending content and engage in further dialogue? –xeno 17:23, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
      • Agree, no disruptive editing at all is taking place, so no block is warranted. — xaosflux 18:32, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
• I'd argue that an attempt to impersonate another user (Lowercase sigmabot III in this case) is grounds for blocking. I've made sure that Earwig and Sigma are aware, and I'll leave the rest to you all. — {{U|Technical 13}} 00:42, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

  Yes, fair enough. I've deleted all those pages and warned them on this: special:Diff/640019781. –xeno 01:03, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

  Seems ok, @Technical 13:; may be the lack of diffs, etc above--but these edits were all isolated to their userspace, still appears to be a type of testing, can you point to any specific diff of them impersonating the real account with an edit outside of their own userspace? (For blocking grounds). — xaosflux 01:23, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

  • This user page is officially controlled by The signmabot? User talk:Lalala6788 (which suggests there needs to be a CU to check if this is the same user using 112.198.99.18 (talk · contribs · WHOIS))? — {{U|Technical 13}} 01:37, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm, seems to be quacking..., may want to cross post this to ANI unless Xeno wants to keep running with it. — xaosflux 01:50, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Looks like they've edited that bit off. Could be friends/siblings messing around. To me it still seems like they're just testing stuff and I don't really see a pressing need to tell them to get off our lawn just yet ;>, it doesn't seem malicious. But yes, if the situation worsens it should probably go to another venue because there's no actual bot activity/problem. –xeno 04:05, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, all; but I think we should keep a lookout for a while longer --Redrose64 (talk) 15:55, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

fyi, Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Bababa67. --Mdann52talk to me! 17:30, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

This guy, whilst no longer pretending to be a bot, admin, rollbacker, autopatroller or whatever other hat that he's decided to give to himself this week, is clearly WP:NOTHERE - more than 500 edits, only about 20 of which are outside User:/User talk: space. It's even more so with his pages on meta: and commons:, etc. on all of which his User:/User talk: edits constitute exactly 100% of his total edits. I sent a note, but they didn't reply; although they certainly saw it. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:21, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

ClueBot 3 not archiving

I came across this after a report to ClueBot NG's page, apparently ClueBot 3 is not archiving?

ClueBot 3's contributions will show it's not archived since 5th January and I'm not sure why--5 albert square (talk) 21:43, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Possible Bot Issue

User:HasteurBot is removing useful categories from all AfC articles which was not approved in its bot request. I found this category quite useful and find it harmful that it is being removed where it is needed. Thanks! EoRdE6 06:19, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Clarification_of_CSD_G13, User_talk:EoRdE6#CSD_G13_Discussion, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation#Blast_from_the_Past, Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard#Category:AfC_submissions_with_missing_AfC_template,Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation#Lecturing_to_the_choir_regarding_G13_and_Category:AfC_submissions_with_missing_AfC_template, Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Unauthorized_Bot_Use for all your WP:FORUMSHOPing/Harassment needs. Technically, I should never have tagged these pages because they were not identified using the originally authorized task. Since EoRdE6 decided to misuse the purpose of the identified category of that task I decided that enough drama had arisen from my unapproved use of the bot that I should remove the pages so that we can start the nice burecratic process of re-asking for permission (or not asking for permission again and forcing EoRdE6 to learn how to do technical things since they're so experienced with the project overall that they mess up CSD tagging on a frequent clip). Hasteur (talk) 06:45, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

And technically the unauthorized task was the tagging that occured under the auspices of Misplaced Pages:Bots/Requests for approval/HasteurBot 5. Tonight's de-tagging was undoing the tags after I more a certain user decided to cause drama over this category. Hasteur (talk) 06:54, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• I'm requesting further discussion here. As I stated on the talk page of the user who hatted this discussion, An unapproved bot task was reported, admitted to by the accused, and as a result, I think the misused bot flag should be removed from the bot until BAG can decide what to do about it. As such, I'm requesting exactly that. Please remove the bot flag from this bot until a member of BAG makes a statement on the behalf of BAG that it is okay cause disruption with a bot carrying out tasks that, using Hasteur's own comment, were not identified using the originally authorized task. Thank you. — {{U|Technical 13}} 23:55, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I see that this thread is a little dusty and the bot seems to be operating normally at first glance, but I need some basic info (just like reporting a bug):

1. What are a couple examples of the unapproved behavior? WP:DIFFs help.
2. Is the unapproved behavior still ongoing? Again, WP:DIFFs help.

--slakr 05:34, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Slakr is an example of the initial unapproved behavior. The bot did not get it's list from User:Petrb/Weird_pages, it was me trying to be clever and bypass the "find the pages that are odd" list and go straight to tagging pages that might be eligible.

is an exmaple of the second unapproved behavior. This was done because I had failed to adhere to the exact authorization provided in the BRFA. A side benefit was preventing a user who was deliberately misusing the purpose of the category from disrupting Misplaced Pages by nominating some of these pages directly for G13 when the pages had only been edited a few days previous and therefore ineligible (under the consensus at the time) for CSD:G13.

This behavior has not continued therefore there is no ongoing issue (only editors seeking to stir up trouble for "opponents"). Hasteur (talk) 06:16, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

@Hasteur: So basically you ran an unapproved task and then tried to revert it, which made a giant mess of things and caused several editors to get frustrated and eventually outright angry. People get angry when unexpected things happen and they feel they have no recourse; this applies both to real life and here. Here, when an editor does something another doesn't like, someone can revert them with a few clicks. If a bot makes a mistake—whether or not another editor is making a mistake at the same time—there's no practical recourse for the editor (other than making thousands of clicks and/or learning a skill they neither already have nor possibly want to know). Case in point, because of this relatively minor screwup in the grand scheme of things, already one person has become frustrated enough to edit war—to the point of getting blocked himself—just because he was presumably, well, extremely frustrated, angry, and wanted someone to alleviate his concerns—something that could have been done had you filed a BRFA in the first place. ( Facepalm).

I, personally, would not recommend removing the bot flag or blocking the bot at this point because neither are urgently necessary given the information at hand; the actions are in the past, and there's no imminent threat of the bot doing it again—that is, provided I'm understanding correctly that that's the case from what you've said.

I, personally, am not going to take action against you, because I know you'll do things by the book in the future. This entire saga won't have to be repeated again, because you now know that even something small can cause unexpected and unintended consequences, and should mistakes happen, you'll consult others before implementing the fix (at the very least as a sanity check) should that fix have to affect numerous pages. I mean, all of that's entirely up to you, but I promise that if you can find the patience to deal with BRFA even with minor things, life becomes a lot easier when the torches and pitchforks come out. And, when bugs and unexpected conditions surface—and they will surface—WP:IAR becomes a geometrically weaker argument in proportion to the ripple of the waves that bug causes (i.e., the perceived damage/stress starts to feel, to the community as a whole, that it outweighs the marginal gain to the encyclopedia provided by whatever action the bot is doing). Again, that's why there's BRFA; it's a place to point to and say, "oh crap, we didn't think about that when we were discussing the thing the bot's supposed to be doing. We'll come up with something to fix it ASAP!" Et voila! Everyone's happy. Problem is pretty much as good as solved to a frustrated editor, and you get plenty of time to fix any issues that arise.

On a related note, you should be aware that this kind of stuff has gotten bot owners sanctioned by Arbcom in the past. Today you angered two people. Do it again, and more will join the bandwagon over time, because that's just what they'll expect. Future out-of-policy screwups, however innocent, will simply confirm ill-seated suspicions about you, and no amount of pointing out their own faults will put a dent in the oncoming tide of anger (not that I would suggest you even do that in the first place *cough*).

TLDR? There be dragons here, and we have precautions to help prevent you from being burned, prevent others from feeling burned, and as a whole keep everyone happy, calm, and cooperative, even if some of those precautions can be bureaucratically annoying.

Consider yourself warned; cue the ominous music. :P

--slakr 07:16, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Labs disk maintenance

Labs has scheduled disk maintenance on January 15 at 18:00 UTC for up to 24 hours. Tools/bots may be affected during this time. Full details available on the Labs mailing list. --Bamyers99 (talk) 16:12, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Maintenance aborted after 2 hours due to performance issues. Will be rescheduled in the future when more disk space is added. --Bamyers99 (talk) 20:15, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

• Perhaps next time notification of this "scheduled disk maintenance" can be done maybe just a little bit more than two hours in advance? --Hammersoft (talk) 21:28, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

@Hammersoft: The mailing list can be subscribed to for more advanced notification. --Bamyers99 (talk) 21:50, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Will the people who scheduled that maintenance please restart Cyberbot I (talk · contribs), which went down at (presumably) 18:00 and is apparently not self-starting? --Redrose64 (talk) 21:34, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd rather not subscribe to the whole mailing list just to listen out for things like this, could notifications be given here a day or so in advance in the future? Sam Walton (talk) 21:55, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Concur. Perhaps (ironically) a bot could do the notifications for you across many language wikipedias? --Hammersoft (talk) 23:38, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Cyberbot I, which normally runs continuously, restarted at 00:00 and seems to be running normally. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:18, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Legobot

I don;t know what's actually happening but it seems like Legobot is malfuntioning. It is notifing Example (See User talk:Example) when GA reviewers start or pass/fails an article instead of notifing the nominator. I tried to contact the bot owner Legoktm (talk · contribs) on his talk page, but they haven;t replied. Thanks, Jim Carter 04:42, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

The bot defaults to Example when it can't find the nominator, meaning that someone probably didn't set up the template correctly. Legoktm (talk) 04:45, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Bot tagging revision

We had a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 117#Bot tagging of edits, where there was pretty strong support to allowing bots to tag individual edits. Based on the discussions, I would say that bot owners should be encouraged to modify their bots to do so, if it would be appropriate. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:33, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

The ability for bots to do that doesn't actually exist yet. Anomie⚔ 17:16, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Inline template "Verify credibility" moved to "Unreliable source?"

The inline template {{Verify credibility}} has been moved to {{Unreliable source?}}. A redirect remains for the old template. Please update any bot actions accordingly. Jason Quinn (talk) 06:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages bots
• Misplaced Pages noticeboards