Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Lsmb-release-bot

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

Request Expired.

Lsmb-release-bot

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

Time filed: 12:27, Monday, December 24, 2018 (UTC)

Function overview: The bot updates the latest release dates and version numbers on the two currently available LedgerSMB pages. (en.wikipedia.org and es.wikipedia.org); these 2 edits happen every 2 to 3 weeks on average.

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Supervised

Programming language(s): Perl (using MediaWiki::API)

Source code available: https://github.com/ledgersmb/ledgersmb-release-tools/blob/master/notify/notification-helpers/release-wikipedia.pl

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):

Edit period(s): at most bi-weekly, 2 edits, 1 on en.wikipedia.org

Estimated number of pages affected: 2

Namespace(s): Articles

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Not applicable (the two LedgerSMB pages don't have a bots template or exclusion complaint)

Function details: The bot searches for the software template; specifically the latest release date and version or the prerelease date and version, replaces those with new ones, based on input parameters specified on invocation, and submits the page. No other edits are being performed.

Discussion

Ehuelsmann wants to know if the above is considered to be a bot or an assisted user edit. Please advise. In case this is considered to be bot activity, please consider this a bot request. If this is not considered to be bot activity, please advise on how to proceed to be granted the appropriate rights -- since the user used for this activity is currently blocked.

~~Also note that I've requested the account to be swiftly unblocked so I can set up the user page of the account to fulfil the requirement of having one and pointing it to the bot manager.~~ (This problem has been resolved now and the bot account has a stated maintainer now.)

Comment: I've transcluded this request to the BRFA main page today after just realizing that nothing had happened with it in a little over a week. I think it was not transcluded in the first place. The account is blocked because it was operating without approval, and it is also operating on a hardblocked proxy, but various admins have agreed that if the bot is approved then the block is moot and I am willing to grant IPBE in that case. Feel free to ping myself or TonyBallioni if necessary. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:45, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (20 edits or 30 days). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:14, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivanvector and TonyBallioni: I've unblocked for the approved trial, if it needs some sort of IPBE you guys can work on that part... FWIW, this is such low volume that while we will likely approve, it will not run with a bot flag. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:15, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No objections to an unblock. Ivanvector is more familiar with this than I am, so I defer to him on IPBE. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:29, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've enabled IP block exemption for the duration of the testing period after conversation with the bot's operator. It is currently operating on a hardblocked proxy and it would be cumbersome to overcome that situation at present. I did suggest to Ehuelsmann that they should consider exploring options to have the bot edit from a different IP, but I don't see any reason to suspect abuse and I'm fine with extending IPBE if the bot is approved. May I suggest if the bot's edits are not going to be flagged, that the account should be renamed so it does not contain the word "bot"? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:43, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivanvector: using "*bot" is OK, and it ~~isn't being flagged because it will be only updating its own pages right now, but may expand (with a new BRFA in the future)~~ it is very low volume and the content of its edits should be subject to normal editorial review.. ~~WP:BOTUSERSPACE doesn't even require a BRFA for this activity, but we're here so it's no big deal.~~ — xaosflux ^Talk 00:13, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I had 2 BRFA's confused, striken and inserted update above. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:59, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Xaoflux:Thank you for the approval! I'll make sure to generate some edits soon (by creating a release). Before I do, I could use a little bit of help: should or shouldn't the edits be marked as "bot edit" (through the edit's "bot" flag)? 11:59, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ehuelsmann: during the trial, it won't matter since you don't have bot 'access' - but also, due to the low volume and content-updating nature of this bot, it likely will not be running with this flag even when approved. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:45, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A user has requested the attention of the operator. Once the operator has seen this message and replied, please deactivate this tag. (user notified) any update on this? — xaosflux ^Talk 04:09, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request Expired. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:02, 7 February 2019 (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.