Jump to content

Wikinews:Bots/Archive 5

Add links
From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
2006–2007
2008–2009
2010–2011
2012–2020
2021–2026
This is an archive of past discussions from Wikinews:Bots. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current page.


The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

  • Closed as unsuccessful. Unfortunately this request has been open for almost two years with little progress. Please feel free to open a fresh request if and when needed. [24Cr][talk] 19:34, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DannyS712 bot (talk · contribs)

The below SQL query retrieves, for each template that has a "use count" sub template, the template/module name, the full number of transclusions, the number that would be put in the template (not the exact number, but some number below it to say "over xxx"), and the name of the use count page. I've only some of the results here, but the total query retrieves 61 rows

SQL Current result 
USE enwikinews_p;
SELECT
  CONCAT (
    CASE
      WHEN tl.tl_namespace = 10 THEN 'Template'
      WHEN tl.tl_namespace = 828 THEN 'Module'
    END,
    ':',
    tl.tl_title
  ) AS 'Page',
  COUNT(*) AS 'Transclusions',
  CASE
    WHEN COUNT(*) < 1000 AND MOD(COUNT(*), 100) < 60
      THEN CONCAT( SUBSTR(COUNT(*), 1, LENGTH(COUNT(*)) - 2), '00' )
    WHEN COUNT(*) < 1000
      THEN CONCAT( SUBSTR(COUNT(*), 1, LENGTH(COUNT(*)) - 2), '50' )
    WHEN COUNT(*) < 10000 AND MOD(COUNT(*), 100) < 60
      THEN CONCAT( SUBSTR(COUNT(*), 1, 1), ',', SUBSTR(COUNT(*), 2, 1), '00' )
    WHEN COUNT(*) < 10000
      THEN CONCAT( SUBSTR(COUNT(*), 1, 1), ',', SUBSTR(COUNT(*), 2, 1), '50' )
    WHEN COUNT(*) < 1000000 AND MOD(COUNT(*), 1000) < 600
      THEN CONCAT( SUBSTR(COUNT(*), 1, LENGTH(COUNT(*)) - 3), ',000' )
    WHEN COUNT(*) < 1000000
      THEN CONCAT( SUBSTR(COUNT(*), 1, LENGTH(COUNT(*)) - 3), ',500' )
    ELSE
      CONCAT( SUBSTR(COUNT(*), 1, 1), '.', SUBSTR(COUNT(*), 2, 1), ' million' )
  END AS 'Over',
  CONCAT (
    CASE
      WHEN tl.tl_namespace = 10 THEN 'Template'
      WHEN tl.tl_namespace = 828 THEN 'Module'
    END,
    ':',
    tl.tl_title,
    '/doc/use-count/doc'
  ) AS 'Counter'
FROM templatelinks tl
WHERE tl.tl_title IN (
  SELECT
    SUBSTR(pg.page_title, 1, LENGTH(pg.page_title) - 18)
  FROM
    page pg
  WHERE
    pg.page_title LIKE '%/doc/use-count/doc'
    AND pg.page_id IN (
      SELECT cl.cl_from
      FROM categorylinks cl
      WHERE cl.cl_to = 'Possible-risk/use-count'
    )
)
AND tl.tl_namespace IN (10, 828)
GROUP BY CONCAT(tl.tl_title, tl.tl_namespace)
HAVING COUNT(*) > 100
ORDER BY COUNT(*) DESC;
Page Transclusions Over Counter
Template:Tl 2638432 2.6 million Template:Tl/doc/use-count/doc
Template:Plink 2610092 2.6 million Template:Plink/doc/use-count/doc
Template:Howdy/content 2610023 2.6 million Template:Howdy/content/doc/use-count/doc
Template:Howdy 2610021 2.6 million Template:Howdy/doc/use-count/doc
Template:Xambox 28934 28,500 Template:Xambox/doc/use-count/doc
Template:W 23205 23,000 Template:W/doc/use-count/doc
Template:COinS 21993 21,500 Template:COinS/doc/use-count/doc
Template:Date 21985 21,500 Template:Date/doc/use-count/doc
Template:Source 21152 21,000 Template:Source/doc/use-count/doc
Template:Social_bookmarks 20524 20,000 Template:Social_bookmarks/doc/use-count/doc
Template:Publish 20517 20,000 Template:Publish/doc/use-count/doc
Template:Archived 19025 19,000 Template:Archived/doc/use-count/doc
Template:Source/uc? 15613 15,500 Template:Source/uc?/doc/use-count/doc
Template:Haveyoursay 12068 12,000 Template:Haveyoursay/doc/use-count/doc
Template:Evalx 11858 11,500 Template:Evalx/doc/use-count/doc
Module:Wikilisp 11857 11,500 Module:Wikilisp/doc/use-count/doc
Template:InfoboxStart 11110 11,000 Template:InfoboxStart/doc/use-count/doc
Template:InfosectionStart 9036 9,000 Template:InfosectionStart/doc/use-count/doc
Template:Peer_reviewed 8734 8,700 Template:Peer_reviewed/doc/use-count/doc
Module:Rptchars 8515 8,500 Module:Rptchars/doc/use-count/doc
Template:(* 8483 8,450 Template:(*/doc/use-count/doc
Template:*) 8483 8,450 Template:*)/doc/use-count/doc
Template:Wikinewline 8338 8,300 Template:Wikinewline/doc/use-count/doc
Template:Peer_reviewed/Passed 8321 8,300 Template:Peer_reviewed/Passed/doc/use-count/doc
Template:Infobox/lookup 8301 8,300 Template:Infobox/lookup/doc/use-count/doc
Template:Infobox/p2 8301 8,300 Template:Infobox/p2/doc/use-count/doc
Template:Infobox_table 8301 8,300 Template:Infobox_table/doc/use-count/doc
Template:Infobox 8300 8,300 Template:Infobox/doc/use-count/doc
Template:Infobox/p1 8300 8,300 Template:Infobox/p1/doc/use-count/doc
Template:Infobox/select 8278 8,250 Template:Infobox/select/doc/use-count/doc
Template:Image_source 6738 6,700 Template:Image_source/doc/use-count/doc
Template:Commentary/LQT 6312 6,300 Template:Commentary/LQT/doc/use-count/doc
Template:Datecategory 5478 5,450 Template:Datecategory/doc/use-count/doc
Template:Wikinews 4602 4,600 Template:Wikinews/doc/use-count/doc
Template:Imbox 3950 3,900 Template:Imbox/doc/use-count/doc
Template:Commentary 3603 3,600 Template:Commentary/doc/use-count/doc
Template:DateDPL 2992 2,950 Template:DateDPL/doc/use-count/doc

The bot would, at a set duration, go and update each counter template with the current transclusions, to keep them (relatively) up to date. The bot will only edit pre-existing templates. Let me know if there are any questions. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 21:37, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

@DannyS712: Thank you for the prompt reply. My main concern was that it’s been open for so long. I know that you are less active here than you used to be. I think it would be unfair to ask you to commit to this unless you actively wanted to do it. Otherwise I’m not opposed to the proposal. --Green Giant (talk) 03:56, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well since I already did the hard part of writing the query, it should be fairly simple to implement if this gets approved and whenever I have time --DannyS712 (talk) 03:59, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The normal process of bot approvals requires a test run, analysis of that run, and then approval if deemed to be done correctly. When you are ready, please go ahead and do a test run of 10 edits. Then we can look at it. Please keep the edit rate at no more than two edits per minute. --Green Giant (talk) 04:22, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is *that* kind of bot which has multiple edits, but then, I am not too entirely convinced we require tables like these, do we?
•–• 04:26, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
 @DannyS712: It’s been a fortnight since the last comment. Please could you update us on any progress? If not, shall we close it for now? [24Cr][talk] 12:51, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't have enwikinews in my global watchlist so I didn't see it. The table above is just for demonstration of the data that the bot gets, it doesn't edit such a table but rather as I explained above "[t]he bot would, at a set duration, go and update each counter template with the current transclusions" so yes, it has multiple edits. An initial run would probably update most of the existing templates because I assume they haven't been updated in a while. --DannyS712 (talk) 03:15, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, could you do a test run of maybe 10-20 edits so we can see it in operation? Cheers. [24Cr][talk] 16:38, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

InternetArchiveBot (talk · contribs)

Comments

Task 1

Old requirements 
  • Comment @Harej: Please note, I would like to have all links (not just the dead links) archived. There are roughly 22k articles in the CAT:Published category. And the bot just needs to archive the links, it should NOT edit the articles. After all the links are archived in that category, IABot needs to monitor the same category for any new additions to the category. Can you please confirm IABot can do that, Harej? Thanks.
    •–• 06:31, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Harej: We use {{source}} for adding the sources as well as the external links. That template has parameters to mark if the link is broken or to provide archived link. However, there are articles which do not use that template. We do not remove/replace sources after the article is published. However, while cleaning up, if a source has broken URL, admins generally find the archived version and add it. Giving a bot access to edit and review archived pages is scary -- as it could do irreversible damage. We wish to use the bot to save the source before the link rot -- once it is saved, one could add the archived version. Moreover, if an archive already exists, there is a sapient decision to make which version of the archive to use. There are articles which are not sighted (maybe because the file/template used for that page has been modified) -- if the bot were to add archived links to that article and sights, such important changes would disappear unnoticed forever. That is why the bot should not be directly editing the article, just merely archiving all the hyperlinks.
•–• 17:45, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
InternetArchiveBot operates on 50 Wikimedia wikis without causing "irreversible damage" to them. In the event the bot malfunctions on a given wiki, mistakes can be undone and the bot can be stopped by any logged in user through the bot interface. The bot is very sophisticated, can be configured to parse templates as well as fix plain links, and automatically picks archives closest to when the link was added. The Wayback Machine has been automatically saving outbound links on Wikimedia projects for years. The benefit of proactively, and automatically, fixing broken links vastly outweighs the risks. Linkrot is endemic to wikis at such a scale that automated solutions are required. Harej (talk) 17:59, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, acagastya is correct: there is danger of irreversible damage. There's history here, between Wikinews and the Foundation, involving a WON'T FIX closure of a Bugzilla request (from before my time, but I learned about it from bawolff). 'Nuff said on that point, I hope. --Pi zero (talk) 18:18, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what the Wikimedia Foundation has to do with this; InternetArchiveBot is a service of the Internet Archive. The bot is operated in many diverse contexts and can be highly customized for a given use case, and I am more than happy to work with the community on that. If you do not want InternetArchiveBot to fix broken links, which is its primary function, then I am not sure what you are requesting at all. If you want the Wayback Machine to preserve outgoing links, it is already doing that. Harej (talk) 18:22, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What you may be interested in is not automated operation, but the option to scan a page and add archives with the element of human review. If so the Analyze a Page feature may be useful for you. (Make sure you have "English Wikinews" as your selected project.) With this you can enter a page title, have it retrieve archive links for all links (not just dead ones), and make the edits conveniently while giving you the ability to review. This may be a more workable option. Harej (talk) 02:11, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Harej: I don't think it works the way I expected. Could you please try with US Republicans query Linux Foundation about open-source security? I think it requires <ref></ref> and does not detect URLs.
•–• 05:54, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Acagastya I was not able to run the bot on that page as it is locked. Harej (talk) 18:43, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively, @Harej:, (this is a less likely scenario), if there was a list of source URLs to be archived, can the tool take care of those? I could write a script to extract all URLs, if there exists a way to automate the archival of those URLs.
•–• 11:13, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are 82k sources in a 6MB file which needs to be archived <https://0x0.st/-iR0.txt> -- is some way I could use this list, run it across the bot/tool, and archive all the links?
•–• 15:33, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:Acagastya the API documentation is available at meta:InternetArchiveBot/API. Harej (talk) 20:22, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, @Harej:. Also, there is some context sensitive information I need to discuss, re IABot. Will you be available on IRC?
103.48.105.246 (talk) 20:36, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I am in #IABot on Freenode as "harej". Harej (talk) 20:55, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm confused as to what the opposition is to this bot. It has been useful on countless wikis and is not likely to cause any damage. Even if it did, it could be easily reverted. It is useful for dead links. --IWI (talk) 14:01, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, as noted above some damage that can be done is irreversible. --Pi zero (talk) 14:50, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain how irreversible damage happens on a wiki when all versions of a page are stored and can be restored at any time? I don't think this was ever clearly explained. Harej (talk) 17:54, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's not readily fixable; as I remarked before, the bugzilla request was closed as WON'T FIX. Given which, I'm not really seeing any cause to dwell on the details (unless you know of someone considering attempting a rewrite of the DPL extension, in which case please let me know and perhaps I'll contact them). --Pi zero (talk) 20:29, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We needed IABot to take care of two different tasks. Upon careful discussion, it was agreed to split the tasks, the prior being taking the snapshot of all the sources in archives (currently under progress, oversee by user:acagastya); and the other being taking snapshots of all the sources for new articles. Since the first task is under progress, let's focus the discussion on just the latter task.
•–• 20:34, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Task 2

  • Comment @Harej: All the sources used in a mainspace article are expected to be listed in the url parameter of {{source}}. {{source}} also accepts archiveurl parameter. Could you configure IABot in such a way that it archives the sources from mainspace articles (which are NOT archived), from url and update archiveurl? @Pi zero: does this sound safe? I hope I am not overlooking something, please let me know if I am.
    •–• 20:41, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have configured the bot to recognize the "archiveurl" parameter. Harej (talk) 20:50, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Seems to me one ought to wait until publication-plus-24-hours before archiving sources. Other than that, I have no strong objection; the most technical harm that could possibly be done is quite limited. --Pi zero (talk) 21:05, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question @Harej: Does IABot have specific triggers (like working at the time of new page creation)? Or does it work in a said time-interval? Re what @Pi zero: has added Harej, I think IABot can just check, if(wikitext.categories.includes('Published')) { run(); }. Will that work? Additionally, can you control which snapshot instance will be added to archive URL? The snapshot with timestamp closest after category:published was added will be ideal.
    •–• 07:17, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(Yeah, published will likely do, which would admittedly be much easier.) --Pi zero (talk) 17:45, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Acagastya, IABot does not have triggers. However, the bot will use the archive corresponding to the stated access time in the citation, or the closest one to when the URL was added. Harej (talk) 17:20, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Cromium: I think that is because noone here is voting -- we need to vote it to pass or fail for them to proceed.
•–• 12:59, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Acagastya: Is that why it is listed as stalled? If so, we can vote but I was hoping to see a test run of 10-20 edits first. However, if the same task is being done on another wiki, I guess we can move to approval. [24Cr][talk] 13:10, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We have been trying to do test edits on the bot and have not been succeeding. Basically the bot goes through AllPages in alphabetical order and all the pages it has come across are protected. The bot will work for “single page” runs via the Management Interface (makes edits on your user account’s behalf, so it will work on the pages you normally can edit) and also multi-page runs for unprotected pages. If you want the bot to make background edits, it will need to be promoted to admin. Harej (talk) 19:08, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Harej: I’ve promoted the bot to admin for a month to help the test run. Please advise if anything else is needed. [24Cr][talk] 12:53, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Harej, I saw the bot made a single edit so far (diff). If the bot is rescuing a dead link in sources, can it also add "brokenURL = true" so that it displays the archived link in the article? —chaetodipus (talk · contribs) 04:39, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
chaetodipus, it will add that parameter on future edits. Harej (talk) 18:30, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

Support given the limitations of the bot (the way it was designed, to serve a specific purpose), I think it is achieves a part of the task, and I am okay with the compromise.
•–• 17:34, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And thinking about it, if the bot does not edit semi-protected pages, we won't royally screw up. :D
•–• 17:36, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support if it gets the process moved to implementation. [24Cr][talk] 00:01, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support I think this would definitely be useful in recovering the many dead sources in our archives. —chaetodipus (talk · contribs) 05:27, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support I am familiar with IAB and find it extremely useful on other projects. I am surprised to learn in viewing this request that it isn't already approved. I think including this is a no-brainer. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 21:29, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Neriah bot (talk · contribs)

Operator: user:Neriah

Bot tasks for which permission is being sought: Treatment of Double Redirects (450+).

Automatic or manually assisted: Automatic.

Edit type: one time.

Maximum edit rate (e.g. edits per minute):

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): I need a bot flag for a week.

Programming language(s): python.

Neriah (talk) 13:42, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

@Gryllida: Can you close this if the bot was approved? Also, please update the active bot list. I don't know anything about the tech aspects of our beloved Wikis. Cheers, --SVTCobra 02:05, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will keep it open for another two days to finalize the discussion of the expiry date on the bot's account, above. I will update the active bot list soon. Gryllida (talk) 02:20, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it open? Didn't User:Neriah bot run on February 1 with nearly 500 edits? I am quite certain you granted the bot user rights on January 31. Maybe there's something I don't understand.. Cheers, SVTCobra 02:28, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, in the comments above, Neriah asked to extend the bot flag duration from 'one month' to 'indefinite'. If this request is closed, then this section will not be editable, and that discussion will need to stop (and start elsewhere). This would make it fragmented. That's why I am trying to finish that discussion here before closing this request. Gryllida (talk) 03:03, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gryllida At first I asked for it on my account, but if it's on the bot's account I'd love it to stay forever, so I can run the bot every month. Thanks! Neriah (talk) 10:52, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both. I will adjust the bot flag expiry and close this section within about a day. Gryllida (talk) 11:27, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gryllida Can you handle and store? Neriah (talk) 15:57, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bot flag expiry set to 'Does not expire'; closing the discussion now. Gryllida (talk) 01:49, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

See my comment above.--Bddpaux (talk) 19:29, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

MGA73bot (talk · contribs)

  • Closed as Successful - apologies for the delay. The test edits are just what is needed for these files. Please also add the Image_info if missing. As for which categories to skip, please use your best judgement. Meta user-page is fine. [24Cr][talk] 22:52, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Operator: User:MGA73

Bot tasks for which permission is being sought: See Wikinews:Water_cooler/assistance#Licenses_on_files_etc. for background information.

I plan to change {{printedition}} to {{Image info}} like this: Special:Diff/4734706

Personally I would perhaps skip Category:February 2006 because Category:February 1, 2006 is a category in Category:February 2006. But File:31January2007.pdf is caegorized in both the day category and the month category.

I can do other stuff too related to cleaning up in files. For example add {{Image info}} if no such template is added or remove Category:Files needing attention if the problem have been resolved.

Automatic or manually assisted: Manually Assisted

Edit type: One time run. Perhaps over several days if I do not have time to change everything in one long run.

Maximum edit rate (e.g. edits per minute): 12 edits per minute.

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): Y

Programming language(s): Pywikipedia MGA73 (talk) 15:10, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I have bot flag on several wikis. For example Commons and Japanese wikipedia. I have done millions of edits. --MGA73 (talk) 15:10, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bddpaux, Cromium, Gryllida: Hi! Could one of you have a look at this request? Is there anything I should do? --MGA73 (talk) 15:07, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MGA73: The bot has only made eight edits here. To satisfy the letter of WN:Bots/Policy's requirement of 10-20 [bot] edits for demonstration purposes (I presume all of those must be local), can you have it make a few more? And what's the minimum edit rate like? The policy requires a maximum of Heavy Water (talk) 17:42, 18 August 2023 (UTC) 12 per minute, which you say is the your bot's maximum. I assume, as a global bot operator, you're aware of the practices in the "Best practices" section of the policy. But I don't understand your reasoning for why you would skip Category:February 2006. Could you explain that more, please? BTW, the edit you linked to above as an example of what the bot would do appears to have been to a now-deleted image. Heavy Water (talk) 15:50, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Heavy Water Thank you for your answer. I did a few more edits.
As for the minimum edits it is not easy to say because I monitor the edits as they happen. So it depends on if I'm distracted by something or not. The rule is that there should be a minimum of 5 seconds between each edit. That will result in a maximum of 12 edits per minute. But I'm open for other edit speeds if that is prefered.
As for skipping Category:February 2006. Yes the file I mentioned was deleted. But it is the same on all the other edits. On Special:Diff/4734707 for example it would be to skip Category:January 2006 because the file is also in Category:January 2006. On Commons there is a rule not put something in both a category and a subcategory of the same category (c:Commons:Categories#Over-categorization). I do not know if a similar rule/practice exist here. I just thought I wanted to ask before I put hundreds of files in categories.
Since I made this request I nominated 825 files for deletion (Wikinews:Deletion_requests#825_sxw-files). Depeding on that I can/will either skip edits on sxw-files, add a deletion template on those files or make the same edits as on the pdf-files. --MGA73 (talk) 16:53, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I meant to say the policy sets a maximum of twelve per minute, and was only curious what your bot's minimum was, but omitted some words. We place an article in all relevant categories, even if it's already in parent categories (so it's easier for readers to find the latest news about a topic, instead of having to sift through subcategories), but I wasn't aware of any local convention for files. Looking at other month categories, like Category:February 2008, I see a lot of Print Edition files placed in those as well as in date categories. Heavy Water (talk) 17:42, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. In that case I will of course add the categories :-) --MGA73 (talk) 16:22, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Original discussion is now in Wikinews:Water_cooler/assistance/archives/2023/August. --MGA73 (talk) 14:24, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gryllida has been fairly responsive in the past, and Cromium returns from time to time. (I note, though, step I of WN:BOTS implies a bot awaiting approval should have a local user page with {{TestBot}}.) Heavy Water (talk) 17:33, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can add if that is needed. But I hope my bot page on meta is acceptable instead. --MGA73 (talk) 13:32, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Leaderbot (talk · contribs)


The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Non-bureaucrat archival. See requests here, here, as well as at here. Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Reviewer) 01:24, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Operator: Leaderboard

Bot tasks for which permission is being sought: meta:Global reminder bot

Automatic or manually assisted: Automatic

Edit type: Daily in theory. However, I think the bot will almost never run on this wiki; however, I'm told that it is still good practice to request approval.

Maximum edit rate (e.g. edits per minute): Maybe once per month at most?

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): N

Programming language(s): Python

Leaderboard (talk) 08:19, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • @Gryllida: is this something you could take a look at? Leaderboard (talk) 14:15, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    On a small wiki I am worried this could be unnecessary as users would make token edits just to keep the access. Is there some evidence that notification, for example if done manually somewhere, improved things and re-engaged the contributor in editing regularly? Gryllida (talk) 13:00, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @Gryllida Firstly, this only applies to temporary rights (i.e when you assign a right for a certain period) - it's not going to remind anyone whose rights are technically indefinite (i.e, it does not affect WN:PEP). This bot was launched only in August, so hard evidence is difficult to find; however, this bot was inspired by a case where a user with global rights was unable to help their community because they did not realise that their rights had expired. For a wiki like this (like most small wikis), it is expected to almost never post anything - so it will simply run silently. Does this answer your question? Leaderboard (talk) 13:05, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes thanks. Then maybe it is not needed here as no privileges expire automatically. I welcome someone pointing out a different point of view, I am rather neutral on this. Gryllida (talk) 13:12, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I see this a bot flag is not needed. The bot will make very few edits. But I think it will be a good idea for Gryllida or someone else to close this request with a comment like "This bot is approved to do the task. No bot flag is needed." --MGA73 (talk) 15:56, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Gryllida, @RockerballAustralia, it looks like this bot request can also be closed and archived.Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Reviewer) 13:56, 6 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Flow cleanup bot (talk · contribs)


The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Non-bureaucrat archival. See requests here, here, as well as at here. Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Reviewer) 01:25, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Operator: Pppery (t · c · b)

Bot tasks for which permission is being sought: Export Flow/LQT boards to wikitext

Automatic or manually assisted: Typically runs at first as one automatic/unsupervised run, and then a later set of automatic/supervised runs to clean up cases the original one punted on. Or at least that's how I did it on MediaWiki.org

Edit type: One-time run

Maximum edit rate (e.g. edits per minute):

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): Y

Programming language(s): Python

Code at https://gitlab.wikimedia.org/pppery/flow-export-with-history and https://gitlab.wikimedia.org/pppery/flow-topic-links-fix. I tend to make minor uncommitted changes to the code as I run into issues, some of which don't make it all the way to the repo.

This bot will also need admin permissions, and XML importer permissions (since it imports the Flow boards with revision history to allow comments to show up in users' contributions among other things). Bot and admin can be granted by local crats, XML importer on most wikis can be granted only by stewards. I'm assuming I only need to request bot rights, not file separate permissions for those other groups. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:21, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Votes

Hi @* Pppery *
  • 1. What their script. I thought flow can start to be used straight away.
    2. There are two halves of the task, conversion to wikitext and page deletion. I am thinking that you can do the conversion to wikitext without admin right; and there is possibly a tool to mass delete what needs to be deleted. Is there a namespace for it? It will be everything in 'Thread:' isn't it? I think Special:Nuke can do it (docs: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Extension:Nuke ); if that's what's needed, i can do it for you after the conversion to wikitext is finished. Please let me know if that's a reasonable approach.
Thanks, --Gryllida 19:00, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gryllida: WMF will run its script to convert LQT pages to Flow, and this bot will then convert those Flow pages to wikitext. The bot will only suppose to run after WMF completes its conversion. --Asked42 (talk) Asked42 (talk) 19:02, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
also see Wikinews:Water cooler/proposals#Phase_2:_Converting_LQT_to_Flow. --Asked42 (talk) 19:03, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I thought if someone converts LQT to Flow, then there is nothing left to do. I am not well informed. Gryllida 19:17, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I could technically do the import to a separate subpage, and not require deleting anything, but I had thought the plan was to do an outright replacement of the LQT with the Flow and then with the wikitext, all leaving as few traces of the previous state as possible behind, which requires deleting both the Flow board and the "/LQT Archive 1" leftovers. I could have built the bot in a different way, I guess, to need fewer permissions, but I didn't expect this to be a problem. And, re Gryllida, Flow is also being deprecated and was only intended to be an intermediate state. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:48, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let me try to elaborate. As I understand the plan:
  1. For every LQT board (with at least one thread on it), the WMF will run a script to convert that board to Flow. This script will.
    1. Move the existing page there to its current title + "/LQT Archive 1".
    2. Create a new Flow board at that title with the same content (and history) as the LQT thread it's replacing.
  2. Once all of that is done, I plan to run my bot. It will, for every Flow board:
    1. Delete the "/LQT Archive 1" page (this part requires admin rights)
    2. Delete the Flow board created in the previous step (this part requires admin rights)
    3. Reconstruct the history of the board as if the entire discussion had been done in wikitext from the start
    4. Use (the API version of) special import to import that history to the wiki onto the title that the Flow board (and previously the LQT thread) used to be (this part require XML importer rights).
  3. Then, once all of that is done, as a second pass it will find all pages linking to "Thread:" pages, and change them to link to the converted wikitext thread (as a minor cleanup matter).
I could do only steps 2.3 and 2.4, importing to a different title instead, and thus not need admin (but still need XML importer). I'll do that if you really want, but it seems like it foists additional technical work onto others for no clear reason. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:04, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Asked42Bot (talk · contribs)


The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Non-bureaucrat archival. See requests here, here, as well as at here. Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Reviewer) 01:26, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Operator: Asked42 (talk · contribs)

Bot tasks for which permission is being sought: Welcoming newly created temporary accounts that meet specific contribution criteria. The bot checks the previous day's newusers log and posts a welcome template to the user's talk page. It strictly filters for accounts that have at least one valid, non-reverted edit outside the User and User talk namespaces, and ensures the account is neither currently blocked nor already welcomed.

Automatic or manually assisted: Automatic (Unsupervised, running via a scheduled GitHub Actions workflow).

Edit type: Daily

Maximum edit rate (e.g. edits per minute): Less than 5 edits per minute. The bot processes a small daily backlog with a 1.5 second delay between queries, so the actual daily edit volume is very low.

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): Y

Programming language(s): Python (using the pywikibot)

Asked42 (talk) 16:30, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Votes

Support per discussion.Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Reviewer) 18:17, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Wikinews:Bots/Archive_5&oldid=5025768"