Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard

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 discuss non-urgent bot issues, bugs and suggestions for improvement. Do that at the bot operator's talk page discuss urgent/major bot issues. Do that according to instructions at WP:BOTISSUE discuss general questions about the MediaWiki software and syntax. We have the village pump's technical section for that request approval for your new bot. Here is where you should do it request new functionality for bots. Share your ideas at the dedicated page

AN/I thread

• WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Doğukeppanochomolungmahokutotenkachōjo bot-like editing

If anyone's available to take a look at this situation, it would be appreciated. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 11:05, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Shortcuts for Wikipedia:Bots

Currently, the info page Wikipedia:Bots lists three shortcuts at the top: WP:BOT, WP:BOTS and WP:B. The last one is ambiguous, with very few correct existing uses, so I've proposed to turn it into a disambiguation page (see this RfD). This leaves us with the other two. Should we keep listing both in the linkbox, or pick one for simplicity? WP:BOT is by far the most widely used (with tens of thousands of incoming links, compared without 2,200 for WP:BOTS). – Uanfala (talk) 13:00, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

2000 incoming links? I think leaving both seems reasonable. –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:40, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

• Wikipedia has a rough standard for singular vs. plural in mainspace, but in this case "BOT" would refer to a singular bot, when it's often multiple, so a source of confusion worth disambiguating. Also 7,282 for WP:BOT unless I am missing something. And the page primary name is actually Wikipedia:Bots. -- GreenC 13:47, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

  Ah, I didn't know about the link count tool! I used "What links here" and saw there were at least several batches of 5,000 [1]. That's strange, why do we get different results there? – Uanfala (talk) 14:08, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

  Sorry my fault. 93k is the correct answer. The 7k is for "Wikipedia:Bot" which is a different page. -- GreenC 15:26, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

  It looks like a lot of the "WP:BOT" links are on user talk pages, and lot of those were generated automatically by DASHBot years ago as part of a notification system. Thus I'm not sure we can say from raw counts alone, because DASHBot was a single person decision to use BOT vs BOTS that had an outsized impact. -- GreenC 15:33, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Shortcuts for a page that has 4 characters in its primary name is kind of silly. :) Izno (talk) 16:45, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Ah, that's silly, yes :) And there I was initiating an important deliberation over the important question whether the 3-letter shortcut is better than the 4-letter one. – Uanfala (talk) 20:58, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

I note WP:B was added to the notice at the top of the page unilaterally a few weeks ago. I thought it was pointless at the time (since WP:B could refer to so many other things) but I didn't feel like being the one to revert it at the time. In light of the discussion now about retargeting WP:B, I'm going to go ahead with that revert. Anomie⚔ 22:29, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Project page move with potential functional repercussions

Per consensus in the move request for the page, I have moved Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Redirect whitelist to Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Redirect autopatrol list. I anticipate that it is possible that there may be bots or other tools that rely on the contents at the former title, and encourage anyone maintaining such properties to update them accordingly. BD2412 T 06:08, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

@DannyS712: * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:33, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

I commented at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Project_page_move_with_potential_functional_repercussions. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:44, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

MusikAnimal might be interested in updating User:MusikAnimal/userRightsManager.js#L-282. –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:58, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping @Pppery. @BD2412 I had left a note in the discussion, I propose that, if this RM is successful, instead of an admin moving the page directly, when I might not be around, the protection temporarily be lowered (to template editor) so that I can move and update the page at the same time as the bot updates. We can make it clear that the protection is temporary and only for this single purpose but I guess that was overlooked. I'll update my code now DannyS712 (talk) 22:01, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Overlooked? I left notices on three different project pages. BD2412 T 01:28, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

I've updated the userRightsManager script. Thanks for the ping. — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:45, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

User:ProcseeBot

• ProcseeBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights)
• ProcseeBot (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

It was raised at WP:BN (diff) that ProcseeBot has not performed any logged actions (i.e. blocks) since November 2020 (log). Given that the bot is not high-profile I'm not really surprised that its inactivity managed to pass under the radar of probably everyone except xaosflux, since they've been removing the bot's name from the inactive admins report for a while. That being said, Slakr seems to have become somewhat inactive as of late, and pppery has suggested the bot be stripped of its rights. Since its activity is primarily a bot-related task and not an admin-related task, I'm bringing it here for review. I have left Slakr a talk page note about this discussion. Primefac (talk) 07:29, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I feel like for security reasons we can probably apply the usual activity requirements to just the bot (rather than including if the operator is active). If an adminbot hasn't logged an admin action for a year it probably shouldn't be flagged as such and a crat can always reflag if it ever needs to be active again. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:43, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

@Primefac I did contact Slakr about this a few months ago (User_talk:Slakr/Archive_26#ProcseeBot); where they indicated it may be reactivated, thus why I have been skipping it during removals (as its admin access is an extension of its operators who is still an admin). So policy wise, think we are fine. Shifting off my 'crat hat and putting on my BAG hat - yes I think we should deflag inactive adminbots; their operators can always ask at BN to reinstate so long as the bot hasn't been deauthorized. — xaosflux ^Talk 09:36, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I did figure you contacted them, and from a BAG perspective "it might be reactivated soon" is always good enough to leave things be. Shifting to my own 'crat hat, though, a temporary desysop until it's back up and running is reasonable, especially since it's been 1.5 years. Courtesy ping to ST47 who runs ST47ProxyBot. Primefac (talk) 09:47, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

• I don't think we should make a redline rule on this, and that if these rare cases arise a BOTN discussion like this is the best way to deal with things. In this case, baring a response from the operator within a week, that this is going to be activated in the month, my position is that we should desysop the bot. — xaosflux ^Talk 09:53, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

  For the record I never intended this as any sort of rule-creating; we're discussing a singular bot. Primefac (talk) 10:06, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

• I think removing advanced perms from inactive bots is a good idea, and allowing them to be returned on-request if the botop wants to reactivate the bot (as long as the approval is still valid). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:56, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
• So, does anyone intend to implement the unanimous agreement here? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:13, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

DumbBOT

I'm hoping that someone can help me with a small problem with DumbBot and it's categorizing maintenance categories.

The daily Orphaned non-free use Wikipedia files categories (like Category:Orphaned non-free use Wikipedia files as of 29 April 2022) should be placed in the Category:Orphaned non-free use Wikipedia files category but, for some reason, after April 29th, DumbBOT began placing them in Category:All orphaned non-free use Wikipedia files category. The Image Deletion categories are organized pretty consistently the same so this is out of the ordinary and I'm not sure what caused the change in categorization last week. This is the only daily Image Deletion category that was altered of the 9 category areas that are created for daily review. It doesn't look like bot operator User:Tizio is active but I was wondering if someone who was familiar with the bot could give this a look. It's a small glitch, not a huge problem but I thought I'd bring it up here in case anyone knows of a solution or why the categorization would suddenly change. Many thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:12, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

 Fixed in Template:Orphaned non-free use subcat starter * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:16, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Wow, that was fast. Thank you, * Pppery *. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:58, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Bot that fixes links to nonexistent category pages?

Just wondering: Is there a bot that currently performs edits related to nonexistent category pages, such as removing the links from articles or creating the category? (Preferably the former?) Steel1943 (talk) 18:35, 6 May 2022 (UTC)