Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/TheMagikBOT 2

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.

TheMagikBOT 2 edit

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

Time filed: 15:59, Monday, January 2, 2017 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): Python (utilising the MediaWiki API and PyWikiBot)

Source code available: --

Function overview: Will add the {{pp}} template to protected pages that do not have them.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Add_protection_templates_to_recently_protected_articles

Edit period(s): Continuous

Estimated number of pages affected: 5/day (Guess!) Initial run will be higher to catch backlog ~5000.

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): ? Yes

Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): No

Function details: Gets all the protected pages and scans to check if they have the appropriate padlock in the top corner. If they do not, the bot will add one. Many pages (~5000) have been returned that need fixing, and this is an ongoing issue. See here for some diffs at the request.

Discussion edit

Do you have a breakdown in the protection levels that you want to deal with? (e.g. FP, TP, ECP, SP, PC). As far as FP pages, that would require an admin bot and an administrator to be the operator. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:09, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pages in the (main) namespace with an edit protection on. FP would obviously require an admin bot, but if that is not possible for me to be granted, I am happy at excluding FP pages. TheMagikCow (talk) 12:11, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see what comes of Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Use_CSS_for_lock_icons_on_protected_pages.3F first. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:18, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. If the magic icon can appear automagically, that'd be great... seems like that shoulda happened ages ago. :P I don't really think about it much any more given the joy that's Twinkle, but yeah. :P --slakr^\ talk / 01:30, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I also think that depending on its permissions, this might also need to take care when it comes to PC pages (which could be active), as the marginal edit just to add the icon can, depending on the bot's permissions, accept pending changes automatically. --slakr^\ talk / 01:30, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cyberbot II has handled adding/removing pending changes protection templates but seems to have stopped. That bot is a pending changes reviewer. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 15:57, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it would skip those pages, and then catch them in the next scan when the changes have been accepted/reverted? TheMagikCow (talk) 09:54, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of questions/points of discussion. Firstly, this bot would fetch the list of protected pages and add the corresponding padlock template. Can this bot do the reverse, removing the padlock from unprotected pages (likely because a protection expired) if you fed it the list of pages which have a padlock template instead of the list of protected pages?

Secondly, could we get an admin and experienced bot user to sign on as an additional operator so that fully protected pages can also be addressed, at least for the first run? This might be more trouble than it's worth, but seems like it's worth talking about. Tazerdadog (talk) 09:40, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We already have bots that remove protection templates (MusikBot (talk · contribs) and DumbBOT (talk · contribs)). —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 00:36, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Tazerdadog: a list of FP/TP could be generated to determine the impact first. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:42, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The impact is nowhere near as many pages in this category. FP pages tend to be indefintiley FP. I think we should just focus on the basic requirements first. TheMagikCow (talk) 07:15, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get this up and running? TheMagikCow (talk) 17:56, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Xaosflux:. TheMagikCow (talk) 16:04, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TheMagikCow This bot will not be able to edit above your own access level - so you will only be able to add for ECP/SP/PC1 - will this still be useful at this level? — xaosflux ^Talk 16:08, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Xaosflux Yeah that will be fine - I can edit the majority of pp'ed articles - I have had a look and the FP etcs pages mostly. seem to have the lock at the moment. TheMagikCow (talk) 17:57, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (40 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Please describe your task at User:TheMagikBOT and use meaningful edit summaries. When done, please update here with link to revisions. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:09, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete. The trial is finished - 40 edits have been made. The contributions are here and some example diffs are [1] and [2]. TheMagikCow (talk) 11:38, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the link to the contributions you placed above. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 14:49, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TheMagikCow: will you be honoring bot exclusion requests (e.g. {{nobots}}) ? — xaosflux ^Talk 15:09, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I will be. TheMagikCow (talk) 15:15, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for extended trial (100 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. TheMagikCow I'd like to see one more run while in "trial", please post results here when done. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:57, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete. - As always, edits are here. I am happy with the trial and results. TheMagikCow (talk) 17:38, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It would be great if approved for the bot to be bot flagged as it would speed up the API queries. TheMagikCow (talk) 17:38, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Approved. with initial ramp up schedule:

500 edits, 24 hour hold
1000 edits, 24 hour hold
Open editing. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:48, 29 January 2017 (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.