From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Bots(Redirected from Wikipedia:BOTN)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Bots noticeboard

This is a message board for coordinating and discussing bot-related issues on Wikipedia (also including other programs interacting with the MediaWiki software). Although this page is frequented mainly by bot owners, any user is welcome to leave a message or join the discussion here.

For non-urgent issues or bugs with a bot, a message should be left on the bot operator's talk page. If discussion with the operator does not resolve the issue or the problem is urgent and widespread, the problem can be reported by following the steps outlined in WP:BOTISSUE. This is not the place for requests for bot approvals or requesting that tasks be done by a bot. General questions about the MediaWiki software (such as the use of templates, etc.) should be asked at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical).

Dams articles[edit]

Hello, I am involved in creating articles in dams manually (not bot), most of them are stubs. Currently, I am working for Japanese dam. I am starting this discussion to get community consensus to create dam stubs around the world. For information, there is a separate wiki project on dams. Best! nirmal (talk) 01:13, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you nirmal for opening this. For context, I asked them to do so based on WP:MASSCREATE after noticing they were engaged the good faith creation of large numbers (slightly over 1000) of similar articles on dams based on a single source, damnet. These articles take the following form:
NAME (Japanese: JAPANESE NAME) is a TYPE dam located in LOCATION in Japan. The dam is used for PURPOSE. The catchment area of the dam is AREA km2. The dam impounds about AREA ha of land when full and can store SIZE thousand cubic meters of water. The construction of the dam was started on YEAR and completed in YEAR.
A few examples can be seen at Yukiyagawa Dam, Yanagawa Dam (Iwate, Japan), and Bicchuji-ike Dam.
I am not certain certain whether such creations, as opposed to inclusion in a list, are beneficial to the reader, particularly since I am not convinced that all of them meet WP:GNG - I note there is no presumed notability for dams, per WP:GEOFEAT. As such, I am hoping the community will discuss this and decide whether to endorse their continued creation in this manner. BilledMammal (talk) 03:28, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would definitely invite WP:DAMS to the discussion. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:39, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done. BilledMammal (talk) 05:06, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
-A similar approach was used to create some of the individual articles of List of gaunpalikas of Nepal and members of parliaments of Nepal. nirmal (talk) 07:10, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I fully support creation of such articles. They can always be expanded later, as Jpxg points out above. NemesisAT (talk) 09:40, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
nirmal, what is your intent for the scope of these creations? Do you intend to create articles on every dam listed in that index, or is it only a subset? BilledMammal (talk) 11:02, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks to nirmal for opening this. My opinion is that it would be better to have these be lists of dams (or maybe a table), rather than individual pages, if the pages are going to consist of the five-sentence template quoted above. List of dams in Japan is too long, but I think it could be split into regional lists, and the list entries can have all of the information currently contained in the stubs. For example, it seems to me everything currently contained in articles like Ameyama Dam and Gokamura-ike Dam could be included in two rows in a table in List of dams in Aichi Prefecture. The individual pages could become redirects, and then if somebody wanted to expand the article on a particular dam, they could easily do that (and then link to it on the list/table). Levivich (talk) 03:06, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not sure if independent articles on dams are always the best idea if there are already articles on the lakes they sustain. I'd also advise gearing this towards dams that do more than simply hold water (something more important like a hydroelectric dam would be preferable). Bicchuji-ike Dam is a mound of packed dirt which helps area farmers. I doubt its notability unless WP:GNG is eventually demonstrated. -Indy beetle (talk) 08:00, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
-Note that almost all of them are large dams.nirmal (talk) 13:17, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For the record, I have in the past thanked Nirmaljoshi for their work on these articles, but also asked him/her to slow down a bit and take care to link new articles to Wikidata or existing articles in other languages, which they have not yet done. I agree that improving the existing list articles would be a good idea, and I stand ready to help. List of dams in Saga Prefecture might be a reasonable example of what can be done quite easily using existing data. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:36, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I would like to thank nirmal for coming here. Every other editor who has mass-created articles has refused even to acknowledge that we had a policy on mass creation, or that any consultation at all was needed before creating huge numbers of articles.
My question to Nirmal is this: why not just use a bot? Wouldn’t it make far more sense to do so than trying to do this stuff by hand? I mean, I’m not a programming genius but I think using excel/Notepad++ I could populated a whole bunch of templates with the requisite data in one go.
All of this WP:MEATBOT stuff would be much better if it were just done automatically. FOARP (talk) 21:28, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@FOARP: Thanks for asking. Actually, I find pleasure to check the size of dams and imagine the age when it was constructed etc. Bot will take away that emotional parts :P . Having said that, I use a locally running python script to gather data. nirmal (talk) 04:53, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
At worst, these dams should all exist as blue links, with a redirect to information about the dam in either a list or the adjacent lake article, right? And there's been no dispute over correctness of the information? So this is an introduction of new, reliably sourced information into the English Wikipedia on a topic we underrepresent (Japan), and turning red links into blue. From perusing List of dams and reservoirs in the United States and Category:Dams in the United States by state, it seems roughly inline for us to have articles on dams of this nature. I'm inclined to say that these mass creations are appropriate. — Bilorv (talk) 22:06, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with your point about parity, but looking at the US dams, not every dam has a stand-alone article, instead they are listed in lists of dams-by-state. From a quick glance at the Alabama dams, the ones that do have stand-alone articles have multiple sections or at least several paragraphs of prose. I think Japanese dams should be similarly organized, but that would mean not creating short stand-alone pages for every dam, and instead having lists of dams-by-prefecture (or some other regional subdivision). Levivich 23:29, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As discussed above, I started splitting List of dams in Japan into separate articles by prefecture, but Fram has moved these into draft space which has broken all the links from List of dams in Japan. I intend to revert these moves shortly, but just letting people know — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:28, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

These were moved to draft because they were Wikidata lists, not lists with local content. That this has broken links is not a reason to have these, and reinstating such lists which were disallowed per RfC is not a wise move. Fram (talk) 12:40, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is irresponsible to leave other artivles in a broken state. By the way I would be interested to see a link to an exact RfC by which you are claiming this consensus. As explained on the AfD this has nothing to do with ListeriaBot. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:04, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The link to the RfC has been provided at the AfD. And redlinks in an article is not the same as "leaving articles in a broken state". What any of this has to do with the bot noticeboard is also not clear. Fram (talk) 11:18, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I suggest a more technical guideline for inclusion or exclusion, instead of deciding subjectively. Having worked in dam and electricity related articles for long, I think I have good understanding on which dams should be included or and which should not. I suggest the followings:
- Include dams that are defined as large dam by ICOLD. Because this is the most renowned body in the dam world, I think no one will disagree with their regulations. They have clear guidelines as listed here. By applying this rule most of the tiny dams will be excluded automatically. For example, among 92,017 dams of USA (Ref:, if we apply filter of height>=50ft(15m) critera only 6853 will qualify to be included in the list.
- Any smaller dams can be included if it has extensive coverage and passes GNG.
- Also I would like to clear some misundersding (or shortsighteness) in the above discussion. ① Lay Dam、for example, is in the state of stub since 2012. The stubs I have been creating are of similar nature. ②I think the pile of 20 m high (7 stories high) and 100 m (football field) dirt is surely notable. I plan to add more sources. Note that, the older the dam, its difficult to get sources in mass media. Excuse me for that.

Best regards!nirmal (talk) 07:53, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

English Wikipedia has had many problems with mass creation of stubs. Just because other stubs exist (and I am not speaking of your efforts) doesn't mean that we should proceed with automated creation. If there is merit, base it on your own work and potential output. Izno (talk) 01:57, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I support the idea of consolidating these in lists/tables and creating standalones articles only if GNG is demonstrated. Right now it's unclear what criteria is being used to choose which dams get articles (are we duplicating the entire database?) and I've already found a few that are just small irrigation ponds (Yamanashi Dam, Higashibaru Choseichi Dam) that will have to be cleaned up eventually. This seems to be an area were the encyclopedia should be expanded, but mass-creating articles from a single database source with no evidence of notability is not the proper way to go about it. –dlthewave 05:57, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I want to thank nirmal for seeking consensus before going ahead with this. I support creation of a list article, as others have said, consolidating the information there without needing to create Geostubs. Articles can certainly be created when there is sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG and jp has demonstrated how stub articles can be created and iterated to good articles, but I note that this was because they diligently did this themself rather than relying on the stubs to be noticed and expanded by anyone else. I would caution against using bots to do the creation of stubs - if the task of creation is overwhelming, then no doubt the task of expansion would be sisyphean. Much better to create a list and then expand out from the list wherever WP:GNG is met. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:09, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Two Bot-related RFCs at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 71#Mass addition of Cleanup bare URLs template[edit]

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.

Please opine. This is a follow up to Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BHGbot 9 and Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard/Archive 16#BHGbot 9 review sought. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:07, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note that both RFCs were disruptive revenge exercises, and were speedily closed as such.
They were both opened by Headbomb out of pique that my work had not been derailed by Headbomb's multiply-abusive antics at WP:Bots/Requests for approval/BHGbot 9, and by BAG's disgraceful endorsement of those antics at WP:Bots/Noticeboard/Archive 16#BHGbot 9 review sought.
It's long past time for BAG to eject Headbomb, and to take a long hard look at what led it to repeatedly endorsed his antics. There are some great people on BAG, but collectively BAG was unable to see some severe problems. For example:
  1. Nobody in BAG could even see a problem in a BAG member describing 100 lines of bot code as dumb as a brick. That was patently false, and its only purpose was to try to insult and humiliate the editor who had written the code.
  2. Nobody in BAG saw a problem in Headbomb's decision to spurn my request for further input, by bombarding the discussion and the closing it before any further input was offered.
  3. Nobody in BAG saw any problem in Headbomb's aggressive disdain for WP:CLEANUPTAG
That's only the start of it: a full list of the misconduct by Headbomb would run to several pages. But either of items 1 & 2 above should have been enough for the rest of BAG to suspend Headbomb and intervene to restore proper, civil scrutiny of BRFAs. BAG members should be utterly ashamed of the fact that BAG instead endorsed such misconduct. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:25, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"disruptive revenge exercises" No, they were not (and revenge for what even?). You were repeatedly told so, and you repeatedly assume bad faith of everyone involved. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:32, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not true, Headbomb. You repeatedly told me that, and your atrocious track record on this issue makes your statements worthless.
Nobody else at VPM endorsed your actions. Absolutely nobody. Nada, zilch, zero, nothing. An uninvolved editor speedily closed those revenge RFCs.
And as I told you before, your bogus RFCs were clearly opened as revenge for my disclosure that your abuse of BRFA had not prevented me from using much the same code to remove ~10,000 redundant cleanup banners over 8 months, with no objections or concerns from anyone at all ... at least until you objected at VPM, where you were supported by nobody.
And no, I do not repeatedly assume bad faith of everyone involved. I assume bad faith only of you, because of your long history of it.
Your record is clear, and you are utterly shameless. I see no reason to expect that you will mend your ways, but I have some small sliver of hope that other BAG members will call time on your bullying antics in pursuit of your personal hobbyhorse. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:08, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
PS for the record, here is the point at which I realised that I could no longer sustain any assumption of good faith in Headbomb's conduct towards me.
On 28/29 December 2021, Headbomb twice accused[1][2] me of seeking to kneecap Citation bot (CB). (The full discussion is most easily read in the archives at User talk:Citation_bot/Archive_30#Feature:_usurped_title: search the page for "kneecap" to find the relevant exchange).
Kneecapping is a severe form of malicious wounding, often used as torture. Its objective is to permanently disable the victim.
However, my proposal wrt CB was not to reduce the bot's capacity in any way. I merely proposed to postpone the addition of extra functionality to CB unless and until CB had the capacity to handle this big extra task.
So even as metaphor, Headbomb's allegation was wholly misplaced: I proposed no wounding of CB, let alone a malicious wounding, and in no way anything intended as torture.
It was also highly offensive to equate my civil, reasoned objection with an act of violent torture. That was in no way whatsoever a civil or reasonable response: it was a form of hyperbolic smearing designed to deligitimise my concerns ... a more extreme version of Headbomb's use of aggressive hyperbole at BRFA, when he described my 100 lines of bot code as dumb as a brick.
In the CB case, there was an even nastier element to Headbomb's conduct. I am Irish (it's openly noted on my talk page), and kneecapping is a form of torture practised especially by the paramilitary groups which emerged in Northern Ireland during The Troubles, and still practised by some residual thugs. So for an Irish person, that is a particularly offensive allegation ... and given Headbomb's history of aggressive bullying of me, I think it is possible that his choice of such a loaded and geographically-specific term was racially motivated.
But just as Headbomb has never in any way backed off from his three rounds of unfounded and unprovoked aggression towards me at BRFA, he has not in any way backed off from his smearing of me at User talk:Citation_bot/Archive_30#Feature:_usurped_title. Instead, he is here defending his disruption at VPM, and repeating his bogus denials.
I did try there to civilly explain to him why this language was completely out of order, but his response[3] was pure gaslighting: You really need to have a major WP:AGF/reality check.
8 months later, Headbomb remain unrepentant about that too.
Why on earth does WP:BAG still tolerate this vicious person on BAG pages, let alone retain him as a member of BAG and endorse his misconduct? BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:32, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Re: "Revenge", I'll remind you you specifically asked me to open an RFC on the matter. For the rest, you're taking completely innocuous remarks completely out of context. All bots are dumb. This isn't a slight on anyone, it's a reality that all bot coders have to deal with. Likewise, saying 'let's not kneecap citation bot' isn't something that's remotely a slight against the Irish or a threat of violence or whatever it is that you're making it to be. It's an exceedingly common metaphor, used all the time in politics, sports, software etc. (e.g. [4], [5]).
I'll note that you have a long-established history of ABF. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:16, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Headbomb: there is nothing innocuous about your choices in that BRFA.
You had made your points, and you had been asked to allow other BAG members to comment.
Your first act of bad faith was your failure to do that. Instead you stepped in with a pile of aggressive hyperbole designed to insult and demean me. That is classic bullying behaviour, a clear demonstration of your bad faith.
Even now, 8 months later, you still stand by your blatantly false claim that 105 line of code is dumb as brick. No brick runs any code, so that if utterly false.
And your claim that "kneccapping" an exceedingly common metaphor is false. It is linked to a section on Wikipedia article which was unsourced. And no, it is not used all the time in politics, sports, software; your individual examples to not in ay way demonstrate widespread usage, let alone the extreme case you claim that it is used all the time.
In each case, it was made abundantly clear to you at the time that your remarks were offensive and unfounded. But you persisted, and you have again persisted here.
That persistence is itself clear evidence of your bad faith: a person acting in good faith would amend their language and terminology to avoid offence damaging the discussion.
And of course, your language and terminology were only part of the problem. You repeatedly claimed that guidance on cleanup tag usage was my personal view, even tho it was in the template documentation; and when corrected you did retract or strike or apologise, you repeated such false claims in relation to other templates.
That's your conduct, Headbomb: smear, insult, attack, abuse your power, attack, insult, never concede even when wrong, never apologise.
Now back to those RFCs.
Headbomb writes that I specifically asked me to open an RFC on the matter. That is only partially true, and mostly false. Yet again, Headbomb is being deceitful.
The linked diff shows that I wrote The RFC question is simple: "Should we retain at the top of an article a big banner about filling bare URL refs which has already been tagged as unsuitable, and which should therefore be replaced or removed"
That is the core question, the core of Headbomb's objection ... but it was not asked in either of Headbomb's fake RFCs. Instead Headbomb used the RFCs to challenge my doing this without a bot flag, which was transparently an act of revenge ... which was why the RFCs were speedily closed.
Note that the speedy closure of these revenge RFCs was appealed by Headbomb to WP:AN, where no action was taken See WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive345#Closure_review:_Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Mass_addition_of_Cleanup_bare_URLs_template.
And please note that after over 10,000 edits of me removing the {{Cleanup bare URLs}} banner as an AWB, not one person other than Headbomb has objected. Not even when I posted a list of contribs at VPM for scrutiny.
This whole saga is all about Headbomb being a bully who abused his position on BAG to try to block my work, and who continues to attack and smear despite having no support at all.
That is the substance of the whole thing. All of Headbomb's aggression and bullying and violent imagery and insults and abuse of process are about work to which NOBODY else objects ... yet even after 8 months, Heambomb cannot let go. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:28, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  1. smear, nope haven't done that
  2. insult, nope haven't done that
  3. attack, nope haven't done that
  4. abuse your power, haven't done that either
  5. attack, see above
  6. insult, see above
  7. never concede even when wrong, there's nothing to 'concede' to start with
  8. never apologise, apologize for what? While you maybe feel you've been attacked, smeared, insulted or whatever, I haven't done so and have acted in good faith towards you the whole time.
You, however, have one of the worst WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality I've ever seen anywhere on Wikipedia, both at the original BRFA, and here, and your failure to assume good faith is why you perceive everything as an attack, rather than as an attempt to help (however successful I've been at it). This is why we have WP:AGF in the first place and this is why I always and repeatedly invited you to reread what was written in light of it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:50, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In context, the phrase "a bot, i.e. dumb-as-a-brick-no-context-mindless-automaton" is clearly a statement about the limitations of all actually-existing bots as a class, rather than a particular piece of code. William Avery (talk) 02:31, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@William Avery
  1. if it is a statement about bots as a class, it is clearly false. No brick runs 105 lines of code.
  2. it is wholly inappropriate hyperbole, designed to insult and to inflame rather to inform
  3. it was posted in direct response to my clear request for feedback from other BAG members.
Instead of stepping back and allowing others to comment, Headbomb piled in to attack me and to bludgeon the discussion.
Having done several rounds of aggressively dismissing all my comments and questions, Headbomb then engaged in a classic piece of gaslighting: he projected his own aggression and abuse of process onto me, falsely accusing me of having a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality.
After 8 months, neither Headbomb nor any of BAG members who shamefully endorsed Headmbomb's antics has yet provided a clear answer to the simple question at the core of this: "Why should we retain at the top of an article a big banner about filling a bare URL ref which has already been tagged as unsuitable, and which should therefore be replaced or removed". BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:45, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That question as been answered multiple times. The bare URL tag is to flag that bare URLs remain. If bare URLs remain, then the underlying issue hasn't been fixed and the tag should remain and not be removed by bots (and I would argue, meatbots too). This is independent of other issues which may be present in the article. That you don't like that answer doesn't mean you weren't given one. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:33, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I note that this discussion is closed. I just want to place on the record that I reject all of Headbomb's responses. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:22, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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.


Hi, Bot folks,

We have a category that many editors working in the AFC area check, Category:AfC G13 eligible soon submissions. It contains drafts and user pages that will become eligible for CSD G13 status in the next 30 days. Sometimes editors check the category to tag drafts when they become eligible, other times they "rescue" promising drafts that would otherwise be deleted. Typically, the total number of pages is around 3,000-5,000 drafts and user pages. The number can sometimes go down to 2,000 but the category always refills itself. We use to have a problem with the category becoming empty about a year or year and a half ago but I worked with ProcrastinatingReader and he had some way of making sure that the category periodically refilled.

Any way, there haven't been any problems with this category for a long time but I periodically check it and the category is down to 1,426 pages! We typically have 200-225 drafts expire each day so that isn't even a week's worth of pages. I went to ProcrastinatingReader's talk page but he has been away since May 2022. I'm not sure what he did to refill the category but I'm guessing it had something to do with bots categorizing drafts and I'm hoping someone here will know something or at least a good guess.

We do have a back-up system, SDZeroBot's lists, but some editors prefer to use this category because it has had the most up-to-date listing. Any ideas or fixes you can think of? Thanks in advance for any help you can offer. Liz Read! Talk! 05:38, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proc was around two weeks ago (c.f. T314688) so they're not totally inactive, but I'm not sure what the best way to get in contact with them is. Legoktm (talk) 21:15, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll try emailing them. I think I was kind of a nuisance about this issue when it was a constant problem but everything has been working fine for over a year now. Liz Read! Talk! 01:38, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As there didn't seem to have been much progress on this matter I wrote and ran this script to "purge" the relevant pages at a reasonably sedate pace. That seems to be causing the relevant modules to re-evaluate which categories to add to the pages, thereby populating the category.
Reading through past requests, BAG don't seem particularly concerned about bots that just do purges, because they can't tell whether they are being run anyway. William Avery (talk) 23:54, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This thread was cross-posted to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Problem with G13 eligible soon category a few days ago, and I filed Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/NovemBot 5 to try to solve the problem. Looks like your algorithm is similar to the one I intended to use. Nice work refilling the category. If you want to make your script a bot that runs weekly, you are welcome to take over the BRFA if you want. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:21, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry. I'm afraid intellectual curiosity got the better of me and I got a bit carried away. The burden of your BRFA is obviously correct. I was going to use the queries at to generate the page list to purge, extending it to leave out pages that are already in the maintenance category. However, you probably understand the draft article workflow better than me, who's just rocked up and thought "let's try purging some pages." I assume you are intending to publish code and hopefully run the task as a cron job on Toolforge, in which case I'd be very happy to leave it to you.
Thank you for being so gracious about it. William Avery (talk) 01:23, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nah you're fine, no toes stepped on. And @Liz will probably be very happy to have the category filled. I'll move forward with my BRFA so that the category stays replenished. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:50, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

sboverride userright[edit]

How would I get User:GreenC bot the new sboverride userright? c.f. T36928 recently closed resolved. -- GreenC 20:12, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh, that's a neat user right. User:AAlertBot could use it since it occasionally encounters urls users used that it cannot report and has to trim the report. I spent way too long fixing it when I first encountered this because I assumed bots would surely be exempt from this. I doubt there's any process yet for granting the right though. —  HELLKNOWZ  TALK 21:06, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You'd probably need to lobby for the permission to be added to an existing user group such as "bot", or for the creation of a new user group such as "sboverride". Any preference? –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:18, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Probably should just get added to bot user group. Izno (talk) 21:27, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The bot user group is "trusted" enough to have sboverride added to it imho — this is proposed at T313107TheresNoTime (talk • she/her) 21:28, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I guess the question is if there is a case when it would be desirable to block a bot's edit due to the blacklist? —  HELLKNOWZ  TALK 21:30, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
IIRC (and I may not), if I try to fix a typo in a section that contains a blacklisted URL, I can't save the edit, even if I am not editing near the URL. If that workflow still exists, it is frustrating. If bots can add blacklisted URLs but regular editors are then unable to edit the sections that contain those URLs, that would be undesirable IMO. If I am misdescribing or misremembering the workflow, or if I am misunderstanding this conversation, let me know in a nice way and I will strike this comment.Jonesey95 (talk) 21:43, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[...] the link filtering is based on what links existed before the edit vs. what links exist after (exist meaning interpreted as an external link by the software). Do you have any evidence that an edit that did not try to add a link was prevent by this extension? See the code - this part makes it so that if the page already existed, the links that are checked are only those that were added in the current end. --DannyS712 (talk) 00:18, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
— m:Requests for comment/Allow sysops to override the spam blacklist

So, it looks like you don't recall correctly. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:52, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for that; that's twice today that you have set me straight. Maybe I'm thinking of trying to revert vandalism, section blanking, or other undesirable edits and being stopped because I would be restoring a blacklisted link. I can't think of a situation where a bot would put a human editor in such a situation, so we're probably OK. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:02, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I guess the question is if there is a case when it would be desirable to block a bot's edit due to the blacklist? AnomieBOT's rescuing of orphaned references. It would probably be better if the bot didn't reinsert blacklisted links, but continue to complain on its talk page for humans to do a proper removal. Anomie 01:27, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You could probably theoretical construct such a bot. But in general, I think whatever bots are doing, if it's an approved task, overrides those concerns.
I wouldn't let an AWB user overide the blacklist, but an AWB bot should be able to plow through. IMO. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:19, 11 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why don't we just create a dedicated sboverride group instead of speculating about whether there is some bot that might be harmed by having the right? * Pppery * it has begun... 15:24, 11 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I could theoretically create a bot that has already existed for 14 years? Anomie 17:19, 11 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request review for possible bot task for fixing dead URLs[edit] User:FABLEBot/New URLs for permanently dead external links. — Qwerfjkltalk 20:41, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you @Qwerfjkl!
Everyone else: For more context, please see Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 72#Request for feedback on research project for fixing dead links HarshaMadhyastha (talk) 18:09, 31 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Misplaced BRFA[edit]

Hello, I just found Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Santali MessageDeliveryBot which was created a couple of days ago but wasn't transcluded onto the main approval page. What's the accepted way of dealing with this kind of thing, the request is on the wrong project. (talk) 14:36, 9 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If the bot is meant to operate on the Santali Wikipedia, then the bot operator can add {{BotWithdrawn}} to the request. If the bot is meant to run on the English Wikipedia, the bot operator would follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval section II: "Your request must now be added to the correct section of the main approvals page". GoingBatty (talk) 19:54, 11 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I concur with the latter part of GoingBatty's statement - there are all sorts of reasons why a BRFA subpage/request would exist but not yet be transcluded onto WP:BRFA. In other words, just leave well enough alone; it's not like it's doing any harm sitting there. Primefac (talk) 09:16, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Issue with File:NWA 74 Anniversary.jpg[edit]

There is currently an issue with File:NWA 74 Anniversary.jpg. Namely, an edit by DeltaQuadBot is followed by an edit by Liz, which is then followed by an edit by JJMC89 bot, and the pattern has been repeated two more times for a total of three. If we do nothing, then the pattern will just keep on repeating every week. Perhaps, Liz tried using User:Legoktm/rescaled.js three times, but the script failed to revision delete the 00:06, 29 June 2022 and 18:12, 18 August 2022 versions all three times. If this fails a fourth time, then either a Phabricator task will need to be created, or an administrator should try revision deleting the older versions manually. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:57, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've deleted the 18 August version, which might be enough to stop the warring bots. Not much confidence in that.
The problem here's the 29 June version, which produces a File not found: /v1/AUTH_mw/wikipedia-en-local-public.2e/archive/2/2e/20220818181232%21NWA_74_Anniversary.jpg error when clicked on, and a 'Revision visibility could not be updated: The file "mwstore://local-multiwrite/local-public/archive/2/2e/20220818181232!NWA_74_Anniversary.jpg" is in an inconsistent state within the internal storage backends' error when I try to delete the file content. —Cryptic 05:10, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The file looks like it was overwritten which is generally not a good thing to do in the case of non-free content (exceptin the case of a relatively minor change) because older unused versions are eventually going to be deleted per WP:F5. Maybe the thing to do here would be to split the files, tagged the old version with {{npd}} and then see what happens. If nobody tries to use the older version, it will be deleted, leaving only the new version to be used in the article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:12, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, my. Here is where my technical ignorance about files becomes apparent. Each night, I respond to files tagged by User:DeltaQuadBot that show up in the Category:Non-free files with orphaned versions more than 7 days old needing human review category. I have installed the tool that deletes previous revisions. That's about all I know about this situation. I do not know why this sequence would be repeating itself. But if I don't "rescale" the photos, there are other admins who will, I just usually get to them first. Has what you've done, Cryptic and Marchjuly, fixed this problem? I've been handling these files for over a year now without this problem coming up before. The only problem I run into is that the script doesn't handle .ogg files which have to be deleted manually. Liz Read! Talk! 07:21, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not an admin; so, I can't really split a file. I'm not even sure if splitting is even possible, but it's the first thing I thought of when I saw the versions were fairly different. Maybe Graeme Bartlett can help sort this out since he's helped me before regarding overwritten non-free files. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:27, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well I can split the file if you like. Another way to go is to actually delete the whole thing and start again under a new name. Then corrupt entries should not cause a stuff up. ANd if it is just bots playing up, we can add {{nobots}} and just correct issues manually.Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:50, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have deleted old revision rather than hiding, so see what bots do about this. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:56, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for taking a look at this Graeme. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:38, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Aha, I hadn't thought to try that.
FWIW, the image does display ok from the Special:Undelete/File:NWA 74 Anniversary.jpg interface; perhaps unwisely, I attempted to undelete it so that it could be hidden properly, on the theory that it had been fixed, and got the same "inconsistent state" error message as when I tried to hide the file version. Oh well. I am confident that the bots will now leave it be, at least. —Cryptic 15:00, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is a known issue: phab:T291137, phab:T244567. As usual, no interest from the WMF devs in providing a fix. -FASTILY 09:35, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for that info Fastily. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:38, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

bot password[edit]

Hello. I have been running a pywikibot (on Marathi wikipedia) from toolforge since a few months now. Using the same bot (which is unapproved on enwiki), I successfully made two edits in userspace (Special:Contributions/KiranBOT_II). But when I am trying to make edits using other bot account (which is approved here — User:KiranBOT), I am getting an error stating "incorrect bot password" even though it was correct. Just to be sure, I changed the Special:BotPasswords, but I am still getting the same error. Any help would be appreciated a lot. —usernamekiran (talk) 07:55, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Usernamekiran sorry I'm a little lost. You are talking about 2 different accounts, correct? (User:KiranBOT II and User:KiranBOT). Which one is having a log on problem, and on which project? When you log on to the webui, as the bot account and go to Special:BotPasswords - you should see the grant you made. Click on the grant and validate the username (it will look like: Fluxbot@FluxbotAWB. Make sure you are using that entire part as the username, and it is case sensitive. — xaosflux Talk 14:53, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Xaosflux: Yes, two different user accounts. I'm trying to edit from toolforge. KiranBOT is approved on both wikis, and KiranBOT II is approved only on mrwiki, but I can perform edits through that account on enwiki as well. For editing through KiranBOT on enwiki, I kept all the format/syntax exactly the same except for changing the username, botname, and bot password. When I enter the command on terminal/shell (using putty), I get the message that my password is incorrect, and then it prompts me to enter the password for "KiranBOT@AWB", even after entering the correct password (tried both the formats), it says password is incorrect, and login gets "aborted". Or is there some process that I completely forgot? I went through pywikibot guide, but it seems like I'm doing everything right. —usernamekiran (talk) 16:07, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Usernamekiran sorry some of these pronouns still seem ambiguous (You have a sentence with 2 usernames in it, and then say "that account"). Exactly which account are you unable to log on to, on which project? For the account you can not log on to via the api, are you able to manually log on to it on that project via the webui? — xaosflux Talk 16:26, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Xaosflux: ouch.
  • KiranBOT_II: approved on mrwiki, but not approved on enwiki. I can login, and edit with this bot on both wikis using botpassword.
  • KiranBOT: approved on both wikis, just edited on enwiki using webui. I kept all the settings same as of KiranBOT II, but still can't login to KiranBOT. —usernamekiran (talk) 17:30, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Usernamekiran ok, while logged in as User:KiranBOT via webui, go to Special:BotPasswords; go to your grant, just delete it and recreate it. When it is recreated make sure in the "Allowed IP ranges" at the bottom it has:
    This is probably the "quickest" way to see if it is working. You can try something besides your script to log on as well (like AWB for example). — xaosflux Talk 17:50, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
already changed, then deleted/recreated the botpass before posting here. Will login to AWB tomorrow from computer. Ciao. —usernamekiran (talk) 18:19, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]