Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/HBC AIV helperbot14

< Wikipedia:Bots | Requests for approval
The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard. The result of the discussion was  Approved.

HBC AIV helperbot14

edit

New to bots on Wikipedia? Read these primers!

Operator: Mdann52 (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 15:45, Thursday, July 18, 2024 (UTC)

Function overview: Reimplement deactivated bot HBC AIV helperbot5

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): Currently Perl, possible future port to PWB

Source code available: Yes, see User:HBC AIV helperbot/source GitHub

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): per WP:BOTN#HBC_AIV_helperbot5_and_AdminStatsBot

Edit period(s): Continuous

Estimated number of pages affected: 5

Namespace(s):Wikipedia Space

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes, but not needed

Function details: Reimpliment the functionality of HBC AIV helperbot5 following operator passing away. See BOTN for context.

Discussion

edit

Approved for trial. Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Run it until you're sure it's working right, and then ping me here with the diffs and I'll check things and put in approval. Primefac (talk) 15:49, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've been unable to get the existing code running again (well it runs ok, it just doesn't ever save it's edits to site....). I've spun up a pywikibot replacement using similar code and logic for now to keep the backlog down, I've reimplmented most of the functionality, minus the Legend information in the summary. Will look to add this in shortly. Mdann52 (talk) 06:24, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Primefac: see contributions with new code here - 12 edits so far. I've killed the bot as it kept hitting edit filters, and got reported to AIV by another bot due to Special:AbuseFilter/768, which I can't see - so not sure how much more testing is easy/feasable. Happy to continue trial for X days or X edits if easier, given the code has changed so speedy approval may not be appropriate. I still need to add in the tagging of IPs/Users when in categories, but the core clerking should be working. Mdann52 (talk) 08:08, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Managed to get around the filter issue, happy things are running as expected from the clerking side. Mdann52 (talk) 09:32, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm okay with a rolling trial; I'd rather you see and fix things on the fly rather than have to wait for a trial extension or similar. As long as the edit summary indicates it's still in the trial phase we should be okay. Primefac (talk) 10:36, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mdann52: If you come across the filter issue again, or even if you're just curious, I'd be happy to share the relevant parts with you. It's not the bot's fault, and would be resolved if it has the bot flag. We also have other workarounds. Just let me know if you want the info. -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:26, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zzuuzz: I managed to find another EFM in the end who sorted it - please send me the relevant parts if it could cause an issue in the future though! I know it's a false positive (I would be worried if a new user making bulk edits to that page *didn't* get flagged), I just found it amusing the bot got reported to the noticeboard it was trying to clerk! Mdann52 (talk) 12:29, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we should just give the bot the bot flag. I've seen bots flagged for trials before. –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:47, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We do sometimes. For something like this where the code isn't identical to the old one, I'd rather have more eyes on the situation. I know a lot of folks have bot edits hidden, but anecdotally they also seem to be the ones that would actually notice issues, so for the moment (especially if the filter issue has been resolved) I'd like to leave the flag off (at least for a bit longer). Primefac (talk) 12:41, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Knowing the filters as I do, and having sent some info to Mdann52, I think the filter aspect is good at this time. -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does this version of the bot merge duplicates? Seems it only removed one of the two reports at AIV against the disruptive username account, as well. – 2804:F1...6D:BFBD (talk) 09:56, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merging duplicates is on my todo list, hopefully complete soon. That second report not being removed is an interesting one. The account wasn't blocked when it checked it, it was g'locked which doesn't show up in the local logs the bot is using (it also isn't marked as blocked, and just appears as "user does not exist" locally. I don't see what reasonable steps I can make it take in the short-term. To answer your other question, it removes replies that start with *:, it ignored ones that aren't correctly nested, but I've sorted that as well so it will look at normal indentation as well. Mdann52 (talk) 10:24, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you need code to detect global locks, that should be doable in raw SQL, raw API, or pywikibot APISite.is_locked() . –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, good point. I'll add that in. Mdann52 (talk) 13:58, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to mention that when an account is locked and hidden, it's not easy to detect. I've never seen a bot manage it. -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This bot added or removed pages to Category:Administrative backlog 22 times yesterday. I don't remember the previous bot ever doing that. I (and I imagine many other admins) watch that category for backlogs that need attention, which is hard to see when AIV subpages are being added and removed every hour. – Joe (talk) 10:10, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The settings for AIV have not been changed from the previous bot, as far as I can tell; the page is still set to trigger the admin backlog template at 4 requests, and the backlog template is removed when it drops to 2 or fewer requests. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 15:45, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I was going to agree that that's just it, but checking the history just now I found this: Special:Diff/1235908666.
      It claims it removed a report (which it had already removed), but what it actually did was set the backlog flag back to adminbacklog - which it then proceeded to set to noadminbacklog again in the next edit. – 2804:F1...C6:ED79 (talk) 16:32, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Indeed - the settings have not changed. @K6ka: out of interest, what are you using the monitor the category - as I'm wondering if the spamming is just because the account is currently unflagged - and whichever tool you are using to watch was ignoring bots adding/removing from that cat.
      @2804:F1...C6:ED79 - I've no idea what happened there, but I did notice a crash and restart around that time last night, so I wonder if it may have been two instances running side-by-side, and trying to edit at the same time. I'll pop some more logging in. Mdann52 (talk) 16:49, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Mdann52: I think you meant to ping Joe :) —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 19:00, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      That's it. I saw them on my watchlist, where I have bot edits filtered out. When will it get the bot flag? – Joe (talk) 19:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      That's one for the BAG. Personally, I'd like to see another 24 hours smooth running before getting another close look from the BAG, as there have been a few minor issues over the last few days (unfortunately), but if others feel it needs flagging/reviewing sooner, then happy for that to happen. Fortunately, there don't seem to be any deal breakers so far (or at least none that have been flagged to me...) Mdann52 (talk) 20:26, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Something that I don't think has come up, is this task(resetting the instructions block if it's changed) at AIV. Will it do that too? – 2804:F1...81:19C4 (talk) 20:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So the current unimplemented functionality is the instructions, and the duplicate reports. I've left these be as for me these are lower priority tasks, and will take some time to think through and implement well. They're also harder to test, given how rarely they actually were used (and also, I question with the instructions if an edit notice is better for these).
    If these are desired before this is marked as done, then I'll make these a priority when I get time, if not it'll go on the weekend backlog, along with some efficiency improvements. Mdann52 (talk) 19:47, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Primefac: - can we get a review please at some stage? Happy to link diffs etc if needed. I will also note the seperate discussions on my talk page, which have all been sorted. I'm not aware of anything other than minor issues being spotted for a few days. Mdann52 (talk) 11:38, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm reading you correctly that all major issues have been sorted, and everyone's happy with how the bot is running (i.e. please confirm this) then I'm happy to approve. Primefac (talk) 12:25, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that is the case, yes. Mdann52 (talk) 11:18, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Approved. Primefac (talk) 13:21, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard.
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/HBC_AIV_helperbot14&oldid=1236971027"