Jump to content

Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:BOTN)
    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


    Hello, Bot-knowledgeable editors,

    FireflyBot is responsible for sending editors who write drafts notices when the drafts haven't been edited for 5 months. It is an essential task especially for new editors who are not aware of our CSD G13. Often when I look into cases, I find that new editors only have one message on their User talk page and it is a notice from FireflyBot about their drafts which is nearing the time of speedy deletion, 6 months of no human edits. So, FireflyBot may be their only contact with other editors or bots on the project. And I think even our experienced editors rely on its notices to let them know they need to return to work on a draft that is going stale.

    I've found that about every 12-18 months, something happens with FireflyBot and it stops posting these 5 month notices so I have it on my calendar to check it twice a month to make sure it is still working correctly. I checked last week and found that the bot had stopped posting notices on September 3rd so I posted a message on Firefly's talk page and when I saw that they hadn't edited in weeks, I followed that up with an email asking for help.

    Well, the bot still isn't working and so I'm asking if any other bot experts can check on it. Typically, in the past, it's some glitch and the bot just needs to be reset (or whatever you call it) and it then posts all of the notices it didn't post when it was out-of-commission. Can anyone take a look at this? Obviously, Firefly, the bot operator, is busy or away so if anyone would be willing to step in, I, and hundreds of draft creators, would greatly appreciate it. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 21:16, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Liz, I'd be happy to help with this. I can run a backup bot until Firefly gets their bot up and running again. If you are okay with that, I can go ahead and file a BRFA shortly. – DreamRimmer (talk) 17:48, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, DreamRimmer, that would be awesome. I appreciate your technical help. About 3 or 4 years ago, a bot that used to handle these notices was deactivated when the bot operator passed away and we went about 9 months without any notices being posted until Firefly stepped up. Editors knowing that their drafts might be deleted frequently leads to them returning to work on the draft or sandbox, reducing the number of CSD G13 deletions. My only complaint is that FireflyBot only posts these 5 months' notices once so, 6 months later, we go through the whole thing again. Several editors and even an admin asked that FireflyBot posts 5 month notices regardless if it had already posted one notification in the past but, I guess, technically, it's a challenge. Liz Read! Talk! 03:47, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Liz, I think we can do this, but I will use the existing functionality for now and leave this change for later. – DreamRimmer (talk) 04:20, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    lowercase sigmabot II and Hazard-Bot

    [edit]

    @Lowercase sigmabot II's last edit was on 05:20, October 23, 2023 and @Hazard-Bot has taken over for the task (seemingly without approval), but sigmabot II does not have an inactive template at the top of its user page and the bot activity monitor shows that sigmabot II is supposed to add back the sandbox header, not Hazard-Bot. Is this supposed to happen? Bg's school acc (talk) 21:32, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Bg's school acc There's Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Hazard-Bot 14. Nobody (talk) 05:15, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    easy-brfa

    [edit]

    Easy-brfa has been a helpful tool to a lot of bot operators in filling out the BRFA paperwork. According to the notice on their user page, all of Enterprisey's projects are to be considered unmaintained. Additionally, it's a bit weird to have to install a user script that does something on just a single page (Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/request). Along the lines of other form-filling scripts like MediaWiki:DYK-nomination-wizard.js, I propose that we move easy-brfa to MediaWiki namespace and have it load via URL parameter (so that you don't need to install the script), and setup the instructions at WP:BRFA to link to the JS form. – SD0001 (talk) 04:43, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Personally I'd rather not force the script on everyone. Anomie 11:32, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't mean to suggest that. Perhaps the "Create request page" button in the instructions can be retained for the no-JS experience and another button can be added in parallel pointing to the JS form. – SD0001 (talk) 12:41, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I personally use the "Create a request page" box in Step 2, and I like it; really all I want/need is something to preload the form for me. Primefac (talk) 13:21, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not hard opposed to this (note would also need User:Enterprisey/easy-brfa.js/tpl-form.js) as an onclick OPTION to the standard form (per @Anomie comment above); however, forking a userscript to a community script means it needs to be more maintained - not less. Are there script maintainers who want to volunteer to maintain it? — xaosflux Talk 13:15, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Bots and their source code

    [edit]

    I know this has come up from time to time, but what are the current sentiments on requiring new BRFAs to provide source code for their bots (unless an exemption is sought, eg because the task is considered sensitive; WP:BEANS, in which case it be provided to some BAG members privately)?

    I think what we've seen recently is that individual bots disappearing doesn't cause huge disruption, but can greatly affect individual processes (c.f. FireflyBot, ST47ProxyBot), and open source code would help with continuity. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:47, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    There was a discussion earlier this month at Wikipedia talk:Bot policy#Open source bots where some gave their sentiments. Anomie 11:44, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the pointer! I wasn't aware of that one. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:19, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Inactive bots (October 2024)

    [edit]

    The following bots are removable for inactivity:

    * Pppery * it has begun... 20:35, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Operators notified. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:37, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's time to deflag them now. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:50, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
     Done. Primefac (talk) 17:57, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Pywikibot and pywikibot scripts

    [edit]

    A new stable version 9.4.0 of Pywikibot was published. This becomes the new base for PAWS web shell. Among others the changes include the following:

    With version 9.4.0 all Pywikibot scripts can now be installed via the Python Package Index, see pywikibot-scripts. The command pip install pywikibot-scripts installs the scripts and the associated Pywikibot framework including all required external packages as a site package. The script must be called via the pwb wrapper, e.g. pwb touch -page:Wikipedia:Sandbox.

     @xqt 09:46, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not entirely sure what I have broken, but it almost certainly has to do with the WikiProjectCard I created for myself as a preliminary experiment, i.e.: User:Biohistorian15/WikiProjectCards/WikiProject Conservatism. Deleting the card should work I guess. Sorry for the effort. Biohistorian15 (talk) 12:48, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @DreamRimmer already tried simply removing the contents of my WikiProjectCard. Apparently there's some other reason for the Bot's non-constructive reverts. Biohistorian15 (talk) 15:51, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I tried to restore the content, but the bot removed it again. Maybe you could reach out to the bot operator to get it sorted out? – DreamRimmer (talk) 16:18, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Problem resolved now. I was only so reluctant due to an irrational fear of editwarring with a bot. :) Biohistorian15 (talk) 20:15, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Category:Open Wikipedia bot requests for approval

    [edit]

    There are entries in Category:Open Wikipedia bot requests for approval that are either not linked from the request page (not sure why), old requests or not actual requests. Gonnym (talk) 17:20, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    shrugs I don't really see that as an issue; it's not like space is at a premium. If you think a possible task has been abandoned, you're welcome to ask the bot op whether they wish to continue. Primefac (talk) 17:25, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    At least, this one can probably be tagged by a BAG member, since the operator got blocked. Nobody (talk) 05:38, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    At various times in the past I've gone through and decategorized the ones that were never submitted at all. Nowdays I think it would probably make more sense to create Category:Unsubmitted Wikipedia bot requests for approval and move requests that were never properly submitted to that category instead. * Pppery * it has begun... 05:46, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably a good idea. Primefac (talk) 12:03, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it will be more useful to have the BRFA housekeeping bot add a comment on such pages noting that the request needs to be added to the BRFA main page for it to be considered. cc @Anomie? – SD0001 (talk) 16:47, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That would be useful for the future. For the dead-on-arrival proposals now their doomedness should just be silently acknowledged. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:27, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Good shout, done. Primefac (talk) 12:03, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems like the operator has withdrawn this request. – DreamRimmer (talk) 15:26, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Closed, thanks. Primefac (talk) 15:53, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Global bot approval request for Leaderbot

    [edit]

    Hello!

    I apologize for sending this 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 Leaderbot on Meta.

    Thank you for your time.

    Best regards, EPIC (talk) 09:36, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Note the English Wikipedia requires most global bots to get local approval to run here, see WP:GLOBALBOT. In this case, this bot task has already been approved to run here in Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Leaderbot. Anomie 11:43, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]