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

BAG nomination

Please note a nomination for Bot Approvals Group membership is active. Feel free to comment here. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 22:46, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Please note, this nomination has been closed as successful. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:15, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Inactive bots May 2017

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.

---

The following bots, and their respective operator, have each had no contributions in over two years and are scheduled to be deauthorized in one week per the bot policy activity requirements. If your bot is listed and you wish to retain authorization, please add a note to the table and sign below.

Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard/InactiveBots/May2017

bot_name	bot_editcount	bot_lastedit	oper_name	oper_lastedit	notes
User:SelketBot	16870	20110624183928	User:Selket	20140216162053
User:SkiersBot	124334	20110715052412	User:Skier_Dude	20120917042322
User:MartinBotIII	136346	20110731122144	User:Martinp23	20130427212553
User:Kotbot	157583	20110816121147	User:Kotniski	20120124000153
User:WalkingSoulBot	1	20110823130647	User:WalkingSoul	20110605220714
User:GurchBot	7421	20110919112313	User:Gurch	20130804182024
User:MiszaBot	81480	20111013170506	User:Misza13	20150219094323
User:DodoBot	136137	20111126163905	User:EdoDodo	20111126164139
User:RaptureBot	13074	20111218221254	User:FinalRapture	20111120060515
User:Rfambot	1774	20120213174928	User:Jennifer Rfm	20131106230051
User:FlBot	14324	20120217110113	User:Fl	20140326014308
User:MessageDeliveryBot	10187	20120605022949	User:EdoDodo	20111126164139
User:AlanBOT	6712	20130429203141	User:ikseevon	20130429040405
User:MMABot	5265	20130505205805	User:TreyGeek	20130628122155
User:LyricsBot	27368	20130921052032	User:Dcoetzee	20141003225306	Operator has been banned Accounts are already globally locked
User:DyceBot	45604	20140105070113	User:Dycedarg	20140315182843
User:HersfoldArbClerkBot	11398	20140110024813	User:Hersfold	20140110040539
User:IPLRecordsUpdateBot	19	20140210113220	User:Jfd34	20140420092748
User:Wpp research bot	3	20140328200839	User:Jantin	20141222190945
User:AstRoBot	4229	20150125114428	User:WDGraham	20150214171645
User:HBC AIV helperbot7	253005	20150204230319	User:Wimt	20150512214048

Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 15:06, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Bot flags are being removed due to inactivity. Should these bots want to be reactivated in the future a new BRFA will be needed. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:39, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Getting updates on finished tasks?

So I had an idea regarding bot tasks, specifically regarding followup. I've often wondered (even with my own tasks) about how many edits actually were made during a bot run, to see if there was any sort of accuracy regarding the initial estimate. Also, thinking about minor tweaks that were made to code to improve it.

Would it be reasonable to ask for bot operators to give some sort of "after action report" for one-off bot runs? Primefac (talk) 14:14, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I'd love to see them list our their tasks on their userpage, with details and notes - but getting people to do it consistently may be hard. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:59, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh! That's a good idea. Might update my own table. Primefac (talk) 18:21, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Proposal_to_topic_ban_Magioladitis_from_COSMETICBOT-related_discussions

Please comment there. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:59, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Redirects

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T53736

I'm hearing that phab:T53736 is being discussed seriously, and that it may affect bots. I don't understand the project yet, but if you're interested in how bots cope with redirects, then please take a look. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 16:19, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This RFC has been scheduled for public discussion on June 28 (Wednesday) 21:00 UTC (2pm PDT, 23:00 CEST). As always, the discussion will take place in the IRC channel #wikimedia-office. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 17:34, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

The phab does not adequately explain what "change wikipage redirects to be proper HTTP redirects" means, i.e. what is proposed. I get that this is about making section links work better and not be javascript-dependent. The API just provides a means to read the contents of a page; it's up to the bot coder to decide whether to "follow redirects" or not. Following redirects is accomplished by reading the page, determining that it is a redirect, and then making another API call to read the contents of the page it redirects to. I don't think there is an API for just reading sections of a page. wbm1058 (talk) 13:53, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I believe this won't have any effect on bots using the API to access pages. The proposal is about the behavior of redirects being accessed via the web UI entry point (index.php). If your bot is using web UI entry points, you really should update it. Anomie⚔ 15:53, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Bot talkpage issue

See VPT:#Bot_talk_page_ignores_talk. -DePiep (talk) 20:45, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

User:InternetArchiveBot is a bot. Responding to an edit of it, I posted on their talkpage this. After "saving", my post did not show?! I had to do research, to discover that the (regular looking) page said like: "Please do not edit this page. Messages left here will likely go unnoticed.". In other words: the bot is deaf. (to be clear: talkpage instructions are not defining. For example: we have Redirects). Why is this bot allowed to operate like this? -DePiep (talk) 20:40, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I commented at VPT for the "technical" concern you had, as for the conceptual this is a better venue. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:52, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

@DePiep: I don't see any real problem on that page, but do see several points to address:

1. You edited over page protection to put that message there - not something that most editors will encounter. You should have seen an obvious indicator of this, along with the protection log explaining this page more.
2. The bot's userpage, User:InternetArchiveBot, very clearly identifies the bot and it's tasks.
3. The operator User:Cyberpower678 is clearly identified - did you contact him?
4. That page had very clear directions about how to report bugs, and how to contact the operator on wiki. It is in effect a large non-standard soft redirect.
5. Of course bots don't listen - they aren't generally programmed to - they generally don't talk back either.

— xaosflux ^Talk 21:04, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

C'mon. I go to a talkpage of a bot. That one should not be deaf. My comment is flushed by Saving. All right that talkpage even Promises in small print "I'll dump your contribution", but that's not OK. My point is, again: why is this acceptable bot talkpage behaviour? (todo: why even does it even require TE rights to post at all???). -DePiep (talk) 21:14, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

re #2: I don't see any real problem on that page: then why reply here at all (duh)?

Even worse: why do you reply in 5 points to a thing you don't see or get? -DePiep (talk) 21:25, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: The <div style="display:none"> appears to be why your post doesn't show. Of course, the placement of that may be disputable, as it appears intended to make new entries added at the bottom invisible (except when viewing the talk page source). —PaleoNeonate - 21:34, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Not 'disputable', PaleoNeonate. Plain talkpage abuse. -DePiep (talk) 22:12, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I would suggest contacting the bot's operator - Cyberpower678, as the bot likely isn't programmed to respond to your queries on it's talkpage. SQL^{Query me!} 21:54, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes sir. That says it all: to contact the bot operator you must got to bot operators talkpage. So why does not User talk:InternetArchiveBot simply Redirect to that operators talkpage? ? ? (Instead of dumping my post down the drain) -DePiep (talk) 22:09, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Probably because contacting the botop is only one of the four potential reasons why you'd be wanting to fix something related to the bot. I find the FAQs on that talk page rather helpful for figuring out where to go. Primefac (talk) 22:18, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Missing the point again. When I go to a Talkpage, my post should be handled, not sunk. -DePiep (talk) 22:24, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Not really. If you go to a talk page that says "Don't click this link" you shouldn't click the link. Similarly, if the talk page says "Posts here will be ignored, try one of these other four options" you should probably try one of the other four options. As for "not showing" your message, I believe that's been answered above - the page is designed not to show messages. Primefac (talk) 22:29, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

(ec) Bull shit. Talk pages are open for talking. If the owner wants something else: use a smart template or a redirect. But do not require that I read a talkpage manual. -DePiep (talk) 22:40, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Basically what Primefac said above. I don't see the issue, you were told where to go for bugs/feedback/questions, and you purposefully didn't do that. That's not on the bot op, that's on you. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:31, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I was not 'told'. It is a regular talkpage. -DePiep (talk) 22:42, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Which has a prominent warning "Please do not edit this page. Messages left here will likely go unnoticed. Please follow the directions below." You saw this. You didn't follow directions. My point stands. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:10, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I assume it omits redirecting in order to give information specifically to users who encountered the bot and not its operator. The same information at User talk:Cyberpower678 would distract posters with no interest in the bot. I suggest adding __NONEWSECTIONLINK__ when posts are unwanted on the page. Users using the new section link can see their post in preview and then it vanishes on save. The top could also have a source comment saying "DON'T POST TO THIS PAGE. READ THE INSTRUCTIONS." Maybe repeat in the last section for users who try to edit that and manually add a section heading. Or add __NOEDITSECTION__ to prevent that. The unclosed <div style="display:none"> was apparently added deliberately.[1] That does seem a little extreme without an explanation. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:32, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

PrimeHunter, that's actually a pretty decent idea, were the page not TE protected. Maybe Cyberpower thought that a TE or admin would notice all of the various/subtle cues about not posting on the page. The other option, of course, would be for them to bump it to full admin protection, since they have that ability and probably only one person (*coughcough*) would object . Primefac (talk) 22:52, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Both magic words added. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:21, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Bot talkpage requiring TE permission

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.

---

While we are at it: how and why can such a talkpage get TE-level of protection? -DePiep (talk) 22:45, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Probably to avoid non-template editors from posting on a page that isn't supposed to be posted on? Primefac (talk) 22:49, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

What Primefac said. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:50, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm the admin who added the TE protection. It was an increase in level following a request to do so (using the same reason as previous) and TE was the chosen level because the botop was a TE and not a sysop at the time it was applied. Probably, full protection would be more appropriate at this stage. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:00, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, full protection would be most appropriate at this point. We occasionally use template editor protection as a hacky solution (e.g. the auto-substitution page for AnomieBOT), but that should be done as infrequently as possible. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:25, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Thirded and  Done. Primefac (talk) 23:29, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

(ec)re are you both talking about the user:bot page or about the user talk:bot page? Do you know & apply the difference in these pages by my original question? -DePiep (talk) 23:34, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Your original question was already answered. The reason your post never displayed was because Cyberpower placed <div style="display:none"> at the bottom of the page, meaning that all new sections would immediately disappear. Thank you for reminding me to extend full protection to the IABot's user page, though. Primefac (talk) 23:37, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

To be precise, the new sections don't disappear; they are not flushed, dumped, sunk or otherwise removed. They are present, but undisplayed. A <div> tag starts a page division. If there is no corresponding </div> tag, the division ends at the bottom of the page. Any HTML element may be given a style= attribute, and the display:none declaration causes the element to not appear in the formatting structure. So if your browser has an "inspect element" feature which permits the toggling of styling, it is possible to make the thread in question displayed by deselecting the display:none declaration. As noted above, editing the page source also shows that it is present. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:53, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

To be more precise, Rr64: this WP:BON is a WP:ANI where all "established" ANI/BON-editors can go loose, without restraint, to protect their friends. Against other editors, sentiment only no reading or arguments needed. For example: by now the Talkpage is blocked (level Obama!). A talkpage!, just to kill my reasonable question. -DePiep (talk) 00:01, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

This is a noticeboard for bot matters, you brought a bot matter here, you got your answer. There are no issues of non-compliance with WP:BOTCOMM or with WP:BOTACC, and were given clear directions on User talk:InternetArchiveBot on where to ask your questions about the bot. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:16, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

To answer your secondary question (which has also already been answered) - there are four options given on the bot's talk page giving directions on what to do if you need to notify someone of the bot doing something it shouldn't. A bot can't think for itself, which is why there's no real reason to be able to post on its talk page. Primefac (talk) 23:39, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

• Just to be clear: what is the WP:BON final reply to my original question? -DePiep (talk) 00:03, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

  Either I'm missing a question (or two), or this reply should have done it. Did I miss part of the question you asked, and if so, would you mind re-asking it? Primefac (talk) 00:06, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

You just linked to one of dozens of replies, so why do you claim that is the answer? (BTW it is not, for example it says: "Your original question was already answered...".). Do you feel proud? What a load of BS you PON homies have to kill any decent argument. You all are promoted to level WP:ANI! Your result: a bot talkpage is protercted (more heavily to keep edoitors like me out!), and none of you have a fair talk to explain it. -DePiep (talk) 00:24, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

OK, I tried giving you the benefit of the doubt here, but you don't seem interested in listening. So, for the last time the talk page was protected because that's not where the bot operator wants you to leave messages. You were told where to ask your question: at User talk:Cyberpower678. This is prominently displayed and explained on User talk:InternetArchiveBot, which is fully compliant with our WP:BOTACC and WP:BOTCOMM policies. What part of your question hasn't been answered? Why are you still here badgering people who try to help you, rather than ask your question about User:InternetArchiveBot at User talk:Cyberpower678? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:34, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Okay, let's try this again

• DePiep, clearly we have missed something fundamental in translation between your original request and what this thread has become. Let's just forget all of that above. What is your question edit: assuming it hasn't been answered by Headbomb above? Primefac (talk) 00:28, 29 June 2017 (UTC)