Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SharedIPArchiveBot

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA. The result of the discussion was

Request Expired.

SharedIPArchiveBot

Operator: Petrb (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 22:39, Thursday November 3, 2011 (UTC)

Automatic or Manual: automatic

Programming language(s): c#

Source code available: yes

Function overview: Track blocked ip users and remove you are blocked message when someone unblock them, or when block expire

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):

Edit period(s): hourly

Estimated number of pages affected: There are ~40,000 shared IP user talk pages, give or take, though this task would only affect those with block notices.

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Y

Already has a bot flag (Y/N): N

Function details: The bot will make a list of all users who are blocked and when their block expire it remove the Blocked template from the talk page Petrb (talk) 22:39, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

This is side task for bot which is supposed to archive all shared ip talk pages. Petrb (talk) 22:48, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to describe this more... As an adjunct activity to our work at WP:UWTEST, my colleague Maryana has worked with Petrb to create a bot specifically for working with the user talk pages of shared IPs. There is currently a proposal still in development for a comparative test to see whether it is positive to archive all of the old, expired warnings that pile up on shared IP talk pages. See the Village Pump, here, and some test edits. However, in the meantime, it seems pretty uncontroversial for this bot to remove only expired block notices from those shared IP talk pages. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 23:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am not sure this is entirely uncontroversial; I think we need a bit more information about what it'll do, and maybe wider discussion/consensus. At the moment, it says it just removes the block messages; it doesn't say if it will replace them, or archive them. Which block messages will it remove? Also, in the related discussion re the other test, several users have expressed concerns about removing expired block messages. I think possibly this needs wider discussion/consensus. I have reservations - if a bot removes a short block (e.g. 12 horus) immediately it expires, I think that will be problematic. Chzz ► 21:18, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree this needs to discussed a whole lot more. First, it is very clear exactly what the bot is going to do: it will remove just the old block notice, create an archive page, and add the block notice there. If there isn't a template with a link to the archives, it will add that to the page so people can find the archive. It's exactly how other talk page archive bots work, which since it operates on thousands of pages already, is clearly not a point of controversy. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 21:28, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I already implemented configuration for a bot so that anyone can update it and reconfigure bot - so you can choose if it should remove them or place something else, and I can't think of anytining better I can do than a bot which is customizable by community so that you can tell it exactly what it should do. (Although I am pretty sure that someone probably oppose even this configuration page) Petrb (talk) 22:17, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's the duration that where it removes stale/old/expired warnings and block notices? tedder (talk) 22:30, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The duration is still being discussed here. Short answer: original proposal was every 72 hours, and we're moving toward a compromise of every week or two. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 22:44, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify: this proposal is separate from the shared IP talk page archiving we're proposing on VPR. For this task, the bot will simply archive any block notice on the test group of shared IP talk pages that has expired (i.e., a block notice on a talk page when the user is no longer blocked). Since blocks are not punitive, I'm having a hard time understanding what purpose expired block messages could serve, other than giving the shared IP a (possibly undeserved) bad track record. And, again, these old block messages would be archived, not deleted, so anyone could easily find them with a single click. Maryana (WMF) (talk) 00:31, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a bit of confusion here. The functional overview says that the block will be removed when someone unblock them, or when the block expires (ie, when it sees an edit doing that in the live feed of edits). But Steven (WMF) is talking about days/weeks between those two events. I think we need to sort out which it is; my concerns wouldn't be the same if it was time-delayed. We kinda need to know which it is. Chzz ► 23:31, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what I'm talking about. Tedder asked about both tasks (archiving the whole talk page, just archiving the block notices). In reference to the time frame, I meant the frequency of talk page archival, not just the block notice. This bot approval request is only to archive block notices that are expired, that's it. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 00:44, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Pending Changes Revisited", anyone? Pesky (talk …stalk!) 12:34, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I think that this is a task that specifically should not be done. If there is going to be a bot that archives shared IP talk pages, it should archive the block notices with the rest of the content, so that the warnings and discussion, if any, are not separated from the block notice. While I understand some of the reasoning behind this idea, breaking up the chain of events will just cause a lot of unnecessary confusion. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:14, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You probably didn't understand it correctly, the bot will actually archive content of whole page. Petrb (talk) 17:38, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bot is now performing two tasks, one is to archive old ip talk pages, and one to remove old you are blocked messages, in case that page is that old so that it matches the conditions of main task, it would get archived full. In case that there is some ongoing discussion, but there is a notice similar to "You have been blocked" while user isn't blocked, bot would archive only that template. Petrb (talk) 17:40, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's also this task request which is relevant. In general I see your point Sven, and it's a good one. Continuity is important. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 20:06, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about it instead posts a "You are now unblocked" message below the block, rather than take the block notice away? I don't object if it's archiving the full conversation, but for the cases where it isn't archiving the full conversation, it should archive nothing until it's ready to archive the full conversation. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:09, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable to me. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 20:24, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But that would confuse the new users who use page of some previous user who had this ip before, and would be just that irrelevant as block message itself. Petrb (talk) 10:22, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What about placing notice "this user (possibly previous holder of this address) was blocked in the past, the block has expired at blah blah and was set after receiving N warnings." that would solve both problems, even that users would know number of templates this user received and there would be no need to keep You are blocked message. Petrb (talk) 10:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused here. I thought we didn't posted block notices for shared ips, assuming the block notice in the edit dialog suffice. _→AzaToth 01:19, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what the policy is, but I see examples of block notices on this, this and this. (I randomly clicked a few from the Category.) Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 01:51, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I object to the stated task, to remove you are blocked message when someone unblock them, or when block expire. I think that specific remit could be disruptive - if block warnings of IP's are removed immediately upon expiry or removal; discussion is ongoing on Wikipedia:VPR; at the time of writing, most users indicate considerable reluctance to removing messages within a timeframe shorter than some weeks. Chzz ► 06:24, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I too saw considerable resistance by NPP and vandal fighters even to archiving. From my own perspective time-scales for archiving should be proportional to the length of block. If an IP is blocked for a year, leaving the notice on he talk page for another year seems reasonable. A half hour block, however could more reasonably be archived. I'm not sure either what the purpose of the archiving is. If it's to be friendly to the other users of the IP then that is surely best done by making it clear to them if they look that people from their institution have abused the service and they would be best served by opening an account, or at least not be (offended and) surprised if the IP gets blocked again when they are trying to edit. Maybe a summary should be put in the archive notice? Rich Farmbrough, 14:08, 18 November 2011 (UTC).

Thanks for the feedback, Chzz and Rich. Since this is controversial, we won't be implementing it in the shared IP archiving test (and Rich, if you're not sure of the purpose of that test, you should check out the VPR thread on it here). Petr – and Chzz, I believe :) – came up with a different idea to deal with expired block notices; you should check out that VPR thread here and weigh in. Maryana (WMF) (talk) 18:45, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just popping in to note someone from BAG has seen this and that we're waitingo n the new thread linked. MBisanz ^talk 15:56, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... this has been sitting around. Anyone have any updates on this and the result of the various discussions? --slakr^\ talk / 02:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This has been sitting around since November. Request Expired. I'm not sure what the plan is now, but when you're ready, feel free to reopen the BRFA. --Chris 02:06, 9 January 2012 (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 WT:BRFA.