Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/MusikBot 5
- 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.
Operator: MusikAnimal (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Time filed: 14:58, Tuesday, September 29, 2015 (UTC)
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic
Programming language(s): Ruby
Source code available: GitHub
Function overview: Reports functional changes of edit filters to the edit filter noticeboard
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Special:PermaLink/683492311#Bot idea
Edit period(s): Weekly
Estimated number of pages affected: 2
Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): No
Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): Yes
Function details: Uses the API to fetch basic information about all the edit filters, including the actions the filter takes (e.g. warn, disallow), the last editor to the filter, and whether it is private. It stores this basic information in a database. Every week, the bot will fetch the edit filter info again and compare it against the stored info of the filters from the week before, and generate a report of what has changed. It then posts this report to WP:EFN as a new section for others to discuss if they feel inclined, and also to User:MusikBot/FilterMonitor/Recent changes so that it can be transcluded elsewhere. The information included in the report can be tweaked at User:MusikBot/FilterMonitor/config.js.This is part of a larger effort to open up the edit filter management process and be transparent about what goes on behind the scenes. All information that is reported is already publicly viewable, this just makes it easier to see what has changed. To clarify, no sensitive information of private filters will be conveyed. — MusikAnimal talk 14:58, 29 September 2015 (UTC)Discussion[edit]
- @MusikAnimal: Hmm... how is this significantly different from Special:AbuseFilter/history? Even anons can view that and the changes. --slakr\ talk / 00:29, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- Ugh, well to be quite honest I wasn't aware there was a way to review all filter changes on a single page, and presumably neither did anyone else who expressed interest in the idea. Potentially I did a lot of working for nothing... which makes me sick, BUT the one advantage is the bot generated report is watchable. Not sure if that's at all meaningful enough... going to post back at WP:EFN about this — MusikAnimal talk 04:15, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- @Slakr: It's difficult to get more feedback but I think it's safe to say we're still interested, if anything for the concept of a watchable page (multiple editors expressed interest in that). I have proposed the watchable page be updated daily to be more effective, and that we still make the post to the noticeboard about changes in the week prior. The argument with the noticeboard is that it is more prominent and sort of opens the changes up for discussion. What do you think? — MusikAnimal talk 00:23, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- @MusikAnimal: TBH, I'm not a huge fan of the noticeboard posting unless it's on a subpage of some sort, because it's trading one opt-in (a watchable page) for a can't-opt-out (also a watchable page), ironically, with the inverse implication for watchlists (i.e., you can't *just* ignore bot edits to a single page), and you could totally miss actual activity/discussions. --slakr\ talk / 21:41, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah I was on the fence with the noticeboard posting as well, just needed you to say it :) So, how about the watchable page, that is transcluded at WP:EFN? That way it has the visibility factor but doesn't clutter recent changes. Especially on a day to day basis we won't see enough entries to bloat the real estate on the page, or we could also wrap the transclusion with
<small>...</small>— MusikAnimal talk 21:48, 2 October 2015 (UTC)- I don't think that's a problem. For example, Cydebot (talk · contribs) spits out User:Cyde/List of candidates for speedy deletion/Subpage and Mathbot (talk · contribs) makes Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old as ways of slightly reorganizing existing data in a similar fashion. --slakr\ talk / 21:54, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- Alright, I've reworked the code and it's now programmed to report all filter changes in the past 5 days. It is currently running and writing to User:MusikBot/FilterMonitor/Recent changes every two hours, that way it is reasonably up-to-date. I assume I don't need approval since it is writing to the bot's userspace? Either way I need to test it... I won't transclude until I see that it's working. I can report back here when I'm convinced it's stable. — MusikAnimal talk 23:31, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
- I don't think that's a problem. For example, Cydebot (talk · contribs) spits out User:Cyde/List of candidates for speedy deletion/Subpage and Mathbot (talk · contribs) makes Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old as ways of slightly reorganizing existing data in a similar fashion. --slakr\ talk / 21:54, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah I was on the fence with the noticeboard posting as well, just needed you to say it :) So, how about the watchable page, that is transcluded at WP:EFN? That way it has the visibility factor but doesn't clutter recent changes. Especially on a day to day basis we won't see enough entries to bloat the real estate on the page, or we could also wrap the transclusion with
- @MusikAnimal: TBH, I'm not a huge fan of the noticeboard posting unless it's on a subpage of some sort, because it's trading one opt-in (a watchable page) for a can't-opt-out (also a watchable page), ironically, with the inverse implication for watchlists (i.e., you can't *just* ignore bot edits to a single page), and you could totally miss actual activity/discussions. --slakr\ talk / 21:41, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Slakr: It's difficult to get more feedback but I think it's safe to say we're still interested, if anything for the concept of a watchable page (multiple editors expressed interest in that). I have proposed the watchable page be updated daily to be more effective, and that we still make the post to the noticeboard about changes in the week prior. The argument with the noticeboard is that it is more prominent and sort of opens the changes up for discussion. What do you think? — MusikAnimal talk 00:23, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- Ugh, well to be quite honest I wasn't aware there was a way to review all filter changes on a single page, and presumably neither did anyone else who expressed interest in the idea. Potentially I did a lot of working for nothing... which makes me sick, BUT the one advantage is the bot generated report is watchable. Not sure if that's at all meaningful enough... going to post back at WP:EFN about this — MusikAnimal talk 04:15, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Not a BAG member but to my understanding one does not need approval for a bot task exclusively in one's own userspace (or the bot's userspace).Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:09, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Approved. That's correct; I will flag this as approved anyway since it seems unlikely to cause harm and we have a trusted operator running it. — Earwig talk 08:19, 6 October 2015 (UTC)- 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.
