Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard

Bots noticeboard

Here we coordinate and discuss Wikipedia 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

Bot flag of TolBot

Hello! I am unsure where to put this, so I figured I'd leave something here. I got a temporary bot flag for my bot's trial of task 1 (BRFA) but it's set to expire in a few days. Task 3 is now approved (BRFA) but I don't currently plan to run it before my bot flag expires. Could someone please either extend the bot flag or grant it indefinitely? Thanks, Tol | Talk | Contribs 19:14, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done, thanks. Didn't get flagged as a temporary assignment on the accepted bots page, so I didn't even think to check. Primefac (talk) 19:30, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

No worries, thank you! Tol | Talk | Contribs 21:55, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Another note: I'll be adding {{NOINDEX}} to the ten subpages of Local without it soon to test; I believe this is uncontroversial and approved with the rest (I take it that the header template {{User:COIBot/Summary/LinkReports}} is for LinkReports, not Local). Tol | Talk | Contribs 22:22, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Done, diffs:

1. diff #1023350052
2. diff #1023350053
3. diff #1023350054
4. diff #1023350056
5. diff #1023350057
6. diff #1023350058
7. diff #1023350060
8. diff #1023350061
9. diff #1023350064
10. diff #1023350066

— Tol | Talk | Contribs 22:28, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Your first diff duplicated the noindex call. That shouldn't be happening. Primefac (talk) 23:06, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

That was because I clicked it twice; it was entirely human error. It started running the first time and only got to the first, and then I clicked it again and it did all of them (as search is not updated quickly). Tol | Talk | Contribs 23:09, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

That's fair enough, my point was more the bot should be checking if it already exists and not make the edit (even if you tell it to check the page a dozen times). Primefac (talk) 23:17, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. I'll redo it so that it searches and stores the pages to edit in an array and then iterates through them separately (once it has the array of pages to edit). Tol | Talk | Contribs 23:23, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

BAG IRC channel on Libera.chat

@The Earwig: to confirm I'm in control of the Headbomb account on libera.chat Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:07, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

May as well bug The Earwig as well, I'm "NoSQL". SQL^{Query me!} 23:38, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Anomie took care of it. Thanks! (Any other BAGgers can ping Earwig or anomie on Libera to get voiced in #wikipedia-en-bag ^connect.) — The Earwig (talk) 05:17, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Heads up for CSRF token change

I imagine most people this affects have seen it already, but just in case, I'm giving this more visibility. If you run code that uses CSRF tokens, you'll need to know about this change. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:34, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

What is a CSRF token? wbm1058 (talk) 21:20, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

See Cross-site request forgery#Prevention. I've created the redirect to point there. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:24, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. That helps clear up the unexplained jargon. Note the previous discussion at Wikipedia talk:Bots/Archive 22#How to use Special:ApiFeatureUsage. There is still some deprecated usage showing on the Special:APIFeatureUsage report from someone likely using an old version of botclasses.php. Is is possible to determine what the ID of the account making these deprecated edits is? I think there's a chance they have a "hearing" problem kind of like the users editing with smartphone apps do. I just noticed that some of the framework functions that I don't use have not been upgraded. function rollback still uses rvtoken and function userrights is still using ustoken. – wbm1058 (talk) 22:49, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Global bot approval request for Neriah bot

Hello!

I apologize for sending the message in English. Please help translate to other languages..

In accordance to the policy, this message is to notify you that there is a new approval request for a global bot.

The discussion is available at Steward requests/Bot status#Global bot status for Neriah bot on Meta.

Thank you for your time.

Best regards,
—Thanks for the fish! ^{talk•contribs} 14:45, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I wonder whether it's worth having this page on that list at this time. Per English Wikipedia policy, the only global bots that are allowed to run here without local approval are those updating interwiki links, of which there probably will never be any more since iw links are stored in Wikidata now. Any other global bots, such as the one linked to, need local approval through our normal processes if they want to run here. Anomie⚔ 21:19, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I think leaving this place on the list is reasonable. Having the notification in place should we ever change local policy saves us having to remember to go back and add the advertisement back, and it seems at least a few editors from here went and left feedback there on the proposal. Izno (talk) 04:29, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Yup. Our local bot community is probably larger than the avg wiki, so probably feedback from users here might be helpful on the meta requests. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:29, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Bot service, unreliable source notices.

Hi Team, I did an edit and added a few refs, and got a warning on unreliable source (FYI's and an aside - Daily Mail the print and website are run by different teams and probably should be treated separately, i.e. DM articles reprinted on website is fine 98%+, mailonlines' own work, include a lot of click-bait opinions and bollocks so fair enough) anyhoo, back to the bot, can the bot report which source it is suggesting is less than OK, I put 3 refs in my edit, telling me one of them is not so good, is not enough detail, especially for inexperienced or new editors, surely a _RETURN message should be easy to implement? Thoughts The Original Filfi (talk) 10:44, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Can you name the bot? The bot's operator should be best-positioned to answer your question. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:02, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

I assume he hit the edit filter. Izno (talk) 17:21, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

I would assume so as well. WP:UPSD would help here if that's the case. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:52, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

@The Original Filfi: please provide a diff of any notice that a bot left you to help identify the bot and its operator. If this is about your recent hits on filter 869 (as seen in this log) please note this has nothing to do with "bots" and you may follow up at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. Best regards, — xaosflux ^Talk 15:46, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Improvements to SdkbBot

Hi! I'd like to expand the functionality of SdkbBot in two ways:

1. Now that I'm running AWB version 6.2.0.0, which fixes the short description layout error among other improvements, I'd like to enable GENFIXes on its edits.
2. I'd like to add an additional find-and-replace that changes ]] <ref to ]]<ref. I did about a thousand edits with this enabled from my non-bot account earlier, and there do not appear to be any issues.

Would these be alright, or should I file a new task and go through that process again? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 03:48, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't know much about formal process here, but I've noticed your "ref-edits", and have a question: why parse for ]] <ref when you code just look for   <ref (with one or more spaces before the tag)? Is there ever a time where spacing before the <ref> tag is correct and appropriate? — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 12:06, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

@JohnFromPinckney: Good question. In the vast majority of cases, no, and where I'm heading is for the bot to eventually pay attention to all such instances with the space and only carve out limited exceptions. But there are exceptions, such as when it follows a | or a Template:Equals (in those cases, the space isn't displaying, and while removing it wouldn't harm anything it'd make the code look a little messier). {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 14:50, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Reconsider "K.Kapil77 Bot"

As mentioned in denial : "MOS:DATERANGE-compliant date to a non-compliant form. I don't have the know-how to tell whether [13], [14] are net-positives; they do look like, but surely a bot going around making such edits is going to generate controversy when errors arise. These are more appropriately done via a human account."

Except for DATERANGE, I don't see any reason to deny. Having said that the edits are made by bot but only manually verified makes it as good as a human making those edits except for ease of use. It sure has corrected a lot of Proper names., and will definitely correct general spelling issues whenever they arise.

Please reconsider the BRFA>>